EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUR BAROMETERec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb52/eb52... · The mother tongue ... Explanatory note for table headings ... Sample Specification

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

EUR BAROMETERPUBLIC OPINION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Report Number 52

Release : April 2000 Fieldwork : October – November 1999

Directorate-General for Education and Culture Telephone : (32.2) 296.54.50Rue de la Loi 200 (T120 – 4/8) Fax : (32.2) 299.45.77B - 1049 Brussels E-mail : [email protected]

Internet : http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/epo/

Reproduction is authorized, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged

i

Introducing the Eurobarometer

Eurobarometer public opinion surveys (“standard Eurobarometer surveys”) have been conducted on behalfof the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission each spring and autumnsince autumn 1973. They have included Greece since autumn 1980, Portugal and Spain since autumn1985, the former German Democratic Republic since autumn 1990 and Austria, Finland and Sweden fromspring 1995 onwards.

An identical set of questions was asked of representative samples of the population aged fifteen years andover in each Member State. The regular sample in standard Eurobarometer surveys is 1000 people percountry except Luxembourg (500) and the United Kingdom (1000 in Great Britain and 300 in NorthernIreland). In order to monitor the integration of the five new Länder into unified Germany and the EuropeanUnion, 2000 persons have been sampled in Germany since Eurobarometer 34: 1000 in East Germany and1000 in West Germany.

In each of the 15 Member States, the survey is carried out by national institutes associated with the “INRA(Europe) European Coordination Office”. This network of institutes was selected by tender. All institutes aremembers of the “European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research” (ESOMAR) and comply with itsstandards.

The figures shown in this report for each of the Member States are weighted by sex, age, region and size oflocality. The figures given for the European Union as a whole are weighted on the basis of the adultpopulation in each country. In certain cases, the total percentage in a table does not always add up exactlyto 100 %, but a number very close to it (e.g. 99 or 101), because of rounding. When questions allow forseveral responses, percentages often add up to more than 100 %. Percentages shown in the graphics maydisplay a difference of 1% compared to the tables because of the way previously-rounded percentages areadded.

This report, which was drawn up by the Citizen’s Centre - Analysis of Public Opinion Unit (EAC D/2; Head ofUnit: Harald Hartung) of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture, is an internal working documentof the European Commission.

Types of surveys in the Eurobarometer series

The European Commission (Directorate-General for Education and Culture) organises general publicopinion, specific target group, as well as qualitative (group discussion, in-depth interview-) surveys in allMember States and, occasionally, in third countries. There are four different types of polls available:

• Traditional standard Eurobarometer surveys with reports published twice a year• Telephone Flash EB, also used for special target group surveys (e.g. Top Decision Makers)• Qualitative research (“focus groups”; in-depth interviews)• In the near future: Eurobarometer Applicant Countries (replacing the Central and Eastern EB)

The face-to-face general public standard Eurobarometer surveys and the EB Applicant Countries surveys,the telephone Flash EB polls and qualitative research serve primarily to carry out surveys for the differentDirectorates General and comparable special services of the Commission on their behalf and on theiraccount.

The Eurobarometer Website address is:http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/epo/

ii

HIGHLIGHTS

This 52nd Eurobarometer report sheds light on the state of public opiniontowards the European Union in the autumn of 1999. The results are morepositive than those from the spring 1999 survey, which was fielded shortlyafter the Santer Commission resigned. The fact that the results are morepositive suggests that the institutional crisis has not had a long lastingimpact on public opinion and that recent developments have helped to liftpublic faith in the European Union.

Trust in the Union’s institutions and bodies

• People are now more likely to trust the institutions and bodies of theEuropean Union than they were in the spring of 1999. Trust in theEuropean Commission has increased by 5 percentage points to 45%. InIreland, Denmark (both +16), Sweden (+15), Portugal and Austria (both+11), trust levels increased by more than 10 percentage points. Thepublic continues to be most likely to trust the European Parliament (53%,+3).

Support for EU membership and benefit from EU membership

• Following the drop recorded in Spring 1999 (49%), support for theEuropean Union is now apparent among more than half of the EUpopulation (51%). Forty-six percent of EU citizens are of the view thattheir country has benefited from membership (+2).

Support for current policy issues

• More than 7 in 10 EU citizens are of the opinion that the European Unionshould have a common defence and security policy and more than 6 in10 feel it should have a common foreign policy.

• Six in ten EU citizens support the single currency, while 32% are againstit. Support tends to be significantly higher in the “EURO 11” countries(68%) than it is in the 4 “pre-in” countries (34%).

• Five in ten EU citizens are of the view that reforming the EU institutionsand bodies and the way they work is a priority for the European Union.

• Less than 3 in 10 Europeans believe welcoming new member statesshould be a priority for the European Union. EU citizens are most likely tosupport the membership of Malta (49%) and Hungary (47%). However,support for the membership of European countries like Norway (71%)and Switzerland (70%) is significantly higher.

• On average, 53% of people support joint EU decision-making in 25 areaswhere the Union has, to varying degrees, decision-making competency.EU decision-making is favoured over national decision-making in 17 ofthe 25 areas.

iii

European integration

• The rate at which people would like Europe to be built has gone upslightly since autumn 1998 which indicates that the institutional crisis hasnot made people more hesitant about the on-going process of Europeanintegration.

• In five years’ time, 45% of Europeans would like the European Union toplay a more important role than it currently does; 27% desire the samerole and only 14% desire a less important role.

Knowledge and awareness of the European Union

• Two in three EU citizens pay attention to news about the EuropeanUnion. The public is most likely to obtain information about the EUthrough the news media, with television being the preferred source ofinformation. Nonetheless, not many EU citizens (6%) feel they know a lotabout the European Union.

• More than 9 in 10 EU citizens have heard about the EuropeanParliament. Awareness of the European Commission (78%) and theEuropean Central Bank (69%) is also widespread.

Participation in the June 1999 European Parliament elections

• Civic duty is by far the most frequently quoted reason why people votedin the 1999 elections (64%). Thus, many Europeans still regard voting asan integral part of living in a democratic society.

• Quite a few people who did not vote say that they stayed away from theelection both because they do not trust politicians, because they are notinterested in (European) politics or because they never vote. The lowturnout rates at the elections may therefore be a sign of loss ofconfidence in the participative element of democracy.

Life satisfaction and expectations about the future

• Eight in ten Europeans are satisfied with the life they lead and theirexpectations for the year 2000 are very optimistic. 33% believe their lifein general will improve in the year 2000 and only 7% believe it willbecome worse. 27% believe their household financial situation willimprove; 26% think that their country’s employment situation will improveand 24% expect their country’s economic situation and their own jobsituation to get better in the year 2000. Less than 10% of Europeansexpect any of these facets to get worse.

iv

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction

1. Europeans in the year 2000 ...........................................................................................................1

1.1. Life satisfaction ...............................................................................................................11.2. People's expectations for the year 2000.........................................................................31.3. European and national identity .....................................................................................101.4. Satisfaction with democracy .........................................................................................12

2. Information about and knowledge of the EU................................................................................14

2.1. Interest in news about the European Union .................................................................142.2. Sources of information about the European Union.......................................................172.3. Self-perceived knowledge of the European Union .......................................................182.4. Awareness of the European Union institutions and bodies ..........................................212.5. Awareness and importance of the Council Presidency ................................................23

3. Public opinion towards the EU at the turn of the year 2000.........................................................25

3.1. Support for European Union membership ....................................................................253.2. Benefit from European Union membership ..................................................................273.3. The speed of European integration ..............................................................................443.4. The institutions and bodies of the European Union......................................................473.5. Support for joint EU decision-making ...........................................................................533.6. Support for key issues ..................................................................................................553.7. Support for the Union's priorities...................................................................................573.8. Support for enlargement ...............................................................................................583.9. The expected and desired role of the EU in five years' time ........................................61

4. The single currency, the euro.......................................................................................................64

4.1. Support for the single currency.....................................................................................644.2. Information about the single currency...........................................................................694.3. Interest in the single currency.......................................................................................734.4 Knowledge about the single currency...........................................................................75

5. The European Parliament ............................................................................................................79

5.1. Awareness of the European Parliament through the media.........................................795.2. The European Parliament's perceived and desired importance...................................815.3. Participation in European Parliament elections ............................................................82

6. Europeans and languages ...........................................................................................................90

6.1. The mother tongue........................................................................................................906.2. Knowledge of other languages .....................................................................................916.3. Which two "foreign" languages are the most useful to know........................................95

v

Table of Contents - Annexes

PageA. Lists

A.1. List of graphs.........................................................................................................................A.1A.2. List of tables ..........................................................................................................................A.5A.3. Text in German of the questions and answer categories used in the tables ............................A.8A.4. Explanatory note for table headings..................................................................................... A.21

B. Tables..................................................................................................................................................B.1

C. Technical Specifications

C.1. Co-operating Agencies and Research Executives..................................................................C.1C.2. Administrative Regional Units ................................................................................................C.2C.3. Sample Specifications ...........................................................................................................C.3C.4. Definition and weighted distribution of the socio-demographic variables.................................C.6

D. Eurobarometer Surveys on Attitudes of Europeans...............................................................................D.1

REPORT

Standard Eurobarometer 52

Introduction

This 52nd Eurobarometer Report presents the views of European citizens towards the EuropeanUnion in the autumn of 1999. Fieldwork was carried out from 15 October to 14 November 1999.The months prior to the fieldwork will be remembered as a period of change and renewal in thelife of the European Union. Following the resignation of the Santer Commission on 15 March1999, the Prodi Commission started work on September 14. In between, the Amsterdam Treatyentered into force (1 May) and the 5th direct elections to the European Parliament were held (10-13 June), with the new Parliament commencing its activities on July 17. These changes shouldbe taken into account when reading the Report.

As this is the last survey carried out before the year 2000, the report begins with a look at overallsatisfaction levels among EU citizens and with an examination of people’s expectations ofthe year to come . Chapter 1 also looks at the extent to which people feel European at the endof 1999. The chapter ends by looking at the extent to which people are satisfied with the waydemocracy works in their country and with the way it works in the European Union .

Chapter 2 begins by examining the extent to which people pay attention to news about the EUin comparison to news about other issues. The chapter also looks at the sources people aremost likely to use when they look for information about the European Union and whichsources of information they prefer . The chapter also reports on self-perceived knowledgelevels about the European Union and awareness levels of 9 of the Union's institutions andbodies . The chapter ends with a brief examination awareness levels of the autumn 1999Presidency of the Council of Ministers .

Chapter 3 looks at long-term developments in public opinion towards the European Union.Here the standard indicators - support for EU membership , perceived benefit from EUmembership and the views towards speed of European integration - are presented. Thechapter also looks at the role played by 9 of the EU's institutions and bodies in the life of theEuropean Union and at trust levels in 9 of the Union's institutions and bodies . The chapterends with an investigation into support levels for a number of current policy issues .

The single currency, the euro , is the focus of chapter 4. It presents support levels for the euroand describes how these have evolved over time. It also looks at the extent to which the publicfeels informed about the single currenc y and the extent to which the public has receivedinformation about it . The chapter also examines public interest levels and ends with byreporting on knowledge levels .

Chapter 5 looks at attitudes to the European Parliament with a focus on the June 1999elections . It reports on the reasons why people voted or decided to stay at home . Thechapter also looks at awareness levels and the perceived and desired importance of theEuropean Parliament .

The report ends with a chapter called Europeans and languages where we report on thelanguages spoken, known and considered most useful by EU citizens.

We wish to thank all the European Union citizens who have taken part in the survey overthe years. Without their participation, this report could not have been written.


1

1. Europeans in the year 2000

In this chapter, we look at life satisfaction levels among European Union citizens at the end of 1999and we look at their expectations for the year 2000. We also investigate to what extent people feelEuropean, together with an examination of levels of national pride. The last section of the chapterlooks at how satisfied citizens are with the way democracy works in their respective countries and withthe way democracy works in the European Union.

1.1. Life satisfaction

Since its inception in 1973, the Eurobarometer has regularly asked European Union citizens howsatisfied they are with their life in general. This life satisfaction question is a summary measure of howpeople feel about all things related to their lives, ranging from their personal happiness, their health,their family and their economic situation to their views about society in general.

In 1999, 82% of EU citizens say they are very or fairly satisfied with the life they lead. As the graphbelow shows, levels of satisfaction have been high ever since the question was first asked with onaverage at least 75% of respondents giving a positive assessment of their life. However, the graphdoes show some variation over time. As one would expect, satisfaction levels are high in periods ofeconomic well-being – which explains the current rise in satisfaction levels – and lower during moredifficult times, such as in 1975 when people were feeling the economic effects of the oil crisis.

7975

79 77 7679 79 80

83 8380 79 81 80 81

77 7882

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19990

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100ÿ

Life satisfaction1973 - 1999

EU AVERAGE

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 1.1aSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

EC9 EC10 EC12+EC12 EU15

The following graph shows that the current satisfaction level for the European Union as a wholeconceals large variations between the individual Member States.


2

33

57

59

51

65

56

57

58

59

63

62

65

64

66

63

53

4

5

5

8

9

10

13

15

16

16

17

18

19

22

32

37

63

37

36

39

25

31

26

25

24

21

20

17

16

12

4

10

DK

NL

S

L

FIN

IRL

A

UK

B

E

EU15

D

F

I

P

GR

Percentage "don't know" not shownStandard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 1.1b

Life satisfaction

Very satisfiedFairly satisfied

Not satisfied

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

People in Denmark (96%) are by far the most satisfied with the life they lead. It is the only countrywhere more than half of the population feels very satisfied (63%). Satisfaction levels are also veryhigh in Sweden (95%), the Netherlands (94%), Luxembourg and Finland (both 90%). The othercountries where satisfaction levels are above average are Ireland (87%), Spain (84%), Austria, the UKand Belgium (all 83%). Satisfaction levels are lowest in Greece (63%) and Portugal (67%).Nonetheless, around 2 in 3 people in both countries feel satisfied with the life they lead.

In comparison to when the measurement was previously taken (in spring 1998), satisfaction levelshave improved significantly in Spain (+12), Greece (+8), France, Portugal (both +7), Germany (+5),Belgium and Italy (both +4). In the Netherlands and Denmark, people are less likely to feel verysatisfied (-7 and –4, respectively) with more respondents now opting for the “fairly satisfied” response(+6 and +3, respectively). In the UK, a drop of 5 percentage points is noted in the “very satisfied”category with a 2 percentage point increase in both the “fairly satisfied” and “not very satisfied”response options. In the other countries, satisfaction levels have not changed significantly since thespring of 1998. (Table 1.1a)

The demographic analyses show that equal proportions of men and women are satisfied with the lifethey lead. There is also very little variation among the four age groups. There are, however,significant differences between the various occupational groups in the population, with managers(88%) significantly more likely to feel satisfied than people in other occupations. Of all thedemographic groups, unemployed people (63%) are the least likely to feel satisfied. Education is alsoan important factor with people who are still studying (88%) or people who stayed in school until theage of 20 or older (85%) more likely to feel satisfied than people who left school aged 15 or younger(78%) or aged 16 to 19 (81%)1.

Finally, the analyses show that 86% of supporters of the European Union, who are more likely to bemanagers and to have stayed in school until the age of 20 or older, feel satisfied, compared to 74% ofpeople who regard their country's membership as a bad thing. (Table 1.1b)

1 See Appendix C.4 for an explanation of the coding of the demographic variables.


3

1.2. People's expectations for the year 2000

At the end of 1980, only 20% of European Community2 citizens believed their life in general would bebetter in the year to come. With 43% of Europeans expecting their life to get worse, the mood was infact quite pessimistic. After 1984 and until the early nineties, optimism dominated. Although a drop inoptimism was noted in 1992 and 1993, the proportion of Europeans who believe their life will be worsein the year to come has steadily declined since then, reaching a low of 7% in 1999. The time-trendpoints to a strong relationship between how people feel about the year to come and the economicsituation of their country. During periods of economic growth, people’s expectations tend to be muchmore favourable than they are when the economy is doing less well.

"Bénéfice"

Moyenne UE "bénéfice""Pas de bénéfice"

Expectations for "the year to come" : Life in general

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 1.2a

@

@

@ @@

@

@

@

@

@@

@@

@

@

@@

@

@@

@

@

@ @

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

END 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 1999

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Better

Worse

*EU15** Change to the question from previous years: "same" is no longer a spontaneous reply but is clearly offered

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - TrendPercentage "don't know" and "same" not shown

38%

43%

38%

35%

29%

13%**

20%

27%

23%

28%

22%

18%16%

7%

10%12%

16%

24%

29%

26%

30%

34%36%

32%

29%

26%25%25%

20%

36%

34%35%36%

38%37%

31%33%33%**

34%34%33%

In terms of individual country results, people in Greece (44%), Ireland and Italy (both 43%) the mostlikely to believe that the year 2000 will be better. Greece is also the country with the highestproportion of people who feel their life in general will get worse (14%), although the extent ofpessimism is considerably less widespread than it was at the end of 1998 (-10). In most MemberStates, the proportion of people who feel life will be the same in the year 2000 as it was in 1999 hasincreased significantly. In no country do we find an increase in pessimism. (Table 1.2a)

Since 1990, the end-of-the-year question has also measured people's expectations of their country'seconomy in the year to come. Europe’s economic well-being at the end of the 20th century is depictedin the latest measurement, revealing the lowest level of pessimism recorded to date (24%).

2 Apart from the 9 countries that were members of the European Community at the end of 1980, the surveyincluded Greece, which joined at the beginning of 1981.


4

Expectations for the year 2000: Life in general

44434342

4036

3434

33

3229

262626

2220

3950

4652

5453

6045

56

5959

686867

6468

143

54

26

512

7

79

44

397

GRIRL

ISE

UKFIN

P

EU15

FB

DKNL

LDA

% Better % Same % Worse

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 1.2bSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Percentage "don't know" not shown

30%33%

20%24%

36%

19% 17%23% 22% 24%

-34%

-27%

-48%

-40%

-26%

-39%-42%

-32% -31%

-24%

End 1990 End 1991 End 1992 End 1993 End 1994 End 1995 End 1996 End 1997 End 1998 End 1999

0%

20%

40%

60%

-20%

-40%

-60%

Expectations for "the year to come":Country's economic situation - EU15

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 1.3a

Better

Worse

*

*

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999Percentage "don't know" and "same" not shown

Note : End 1990 - End 1995 : EU12* Change to the question from previous years: "same" is no longer a spontaneous reply but is clearly offered


5

Significant differences are noted between the 15 Member States. In Sweden (46%) and Ireland (44%)more than 4 in 10 people expect the economic situation to get better while more than 3 in 10 people inGreece (36%), Germany and Italy (both 31%) expect the economic situation to get worse.

Expectations for the year 2000:Country's economic situation46

4436

342828

25

24

2424

222019

1717

14

3439

4848

4032

59

43

4235

4546

415456

54

156

1110

1636

12

24

2431

2521

3117

1926

SIRLFIN

EP

GRNL

EU15

BI

FUK

DLA

DK




There are also significant shifts within many countries in comparison to last year. In Sweden (+18),the Netherlands, Greece (both +13), Belgium (+11), Ireland (+9), Finland (+8), the UK (+7), Portugaland Denmark (both +5), people are now considerably more likely to be optimistic. In some of thesecountries, the proportion of people with a pessimistic outlook has fallen by more than 15 percentagepoints (the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and Greece). Germany and Spain are the only 2 countrieswhere levels of pessimism did not drop significantly. (Table 1.3a)

Another item that was added to the end-of-the-year question in 1990 measures what people expect tohappen in terms of their household financial situation in the year to come.

32% 30%

22% 22%25%

22% 22%25% 25% 27%

-17% -18%

-26% -24%-20% -20% -20%

-16% -14%-10%

End 1990 End 1991 End 1992 End 1993 End 1994 End 1995 End 1996 End 1997 End 1998 End 1999

0%

20%

40%

60%

-20%

-40%

-60%

Expectations for "the year to come":Household financial situation - EU15

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 1.4a Percentage "don't know" and "same" not shown

*

*


Worse

Better

Note : End 1990 - End 1995 : EU12* Change to the question from previous years: "same", isno longer a spontaneous reply but is clearly offered


6

In recent years, optimistic forecasts have steadily risen from 22% in 1996 to 27% in 1999, with theproportion of people believing their household financial situation will be worse being the lowestmeasured to date. However, the majority of Europeans expect that their household financial situationwill remain the same in 2000 as it was in 1999. In every single Member State, this is the mostfrequently expressed expectation, ranging from 48% in Greece to 67% in Austria.

Expectations for the year 2000:Household financial situation40

3434

3232313030292827

27

2623

1818

5048

5658

5249

5561

556164

58

5965

6667

716

46

1012

87

1210

8

10

96

1310

SGRIRL

EUK

PI

FINF

NLDK

EU15

BLDA




Looking at the country results, we find that people in most of the Member States are now more likelyto be optimistic than last year. This improved optimism is particularly evident in Greece (+13), Belgium(+8) and Portugal (+7). There is not a single EU Member State where people are now more likely tobelieve that their household financial situation will be worse in 2000 than it was in 1999. In theNetherlands (+6), Austria and Germany (both +5), people are now considerably more likely to believethat the year 2000 will be the same as 1999. (Table 1.4a)

With falling unemployment rates, it is not surprising to find that Europeans are becoming more andmore optimistic about the employment situation in their country. Whereas in 1996, only 16% of EUcitizens believed the employment situation in their country would get better the following year, 26%now hold this view. Only 28% believe it will get worse (compared to 35% last year). Optimism is nowas widespread as it was when the question was first asked at the end of 1994.


7

27%

18% 16%

28%23%

26%

-30%

-44%-48%

-14%

-35%

-28%

End 1994 End 1995 End 1996 End 1997 End 1998 End 1999

0%

20%

40%

60%

-20%

-40%

-60%

Expectations for "the year to come":Country's employment situation - EU15


*

*


Worse

Percentage "don't know" and "same" not shown

Better

Note : End 1990 - End 1995 : EU12* Change to the question from previous years: "same" is no longer a spontaneous reply but is clearly offered

Data from EUROSTAT shows that the unemployment rate at the time of the survey was lower than itwas a year earlier in 11 of the 15 Member States (data for Greece was not available). In Denmark,unemployment levels have stayed at 4.2%, while they rose marginally in Luxembourg (+0.5%) andBelgium (+0.3%).

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, SEASONALLY ADJUSTED3

B DK D GR E F IRL I

1993.10 9.4 9.7 8.4 NA 23.7 12.3 15.4 10.8

1994.10 10.1 7.6 8.2 NA 23.9 12.1 14.5 11.8

1995.11 10.0 6.6 8.5 NA 22.7 11.8 12.4 11.9

1996.11 9.4 6.1 9.2 NA 21.7 12.4 11.0 12.1

1997.11 9.1 5.1 10.2 NA 20.2 12.3 9.8 12.1

1998.10 8.6 4.2 9.4 NA 18.4 11.8 8.6 12.3

1999.10 8.9 4.2 9.1 NA 15.3 10.7 6.1 11.1

L NL A P FIN S UK EU15

1993.10 2.9 6.9 NA 6.2 18.9 10.4 10.4 11.2

1994.10 3.7 7.1 NA 7.2 17.7 9.4 9.1 11.0

1995.11 2.9 7.0 4.0 7.4 16.2 9.3 8.6 10.8

1996.11 2.8 6.1 4.3 7.1 15.2 10.0 7.9 10.8

1997.11 2.5 4.6 4.4 6.5 11.9 9.0 6.5 10.5

1998.10 2.2 3.6 4.4 4.5 11.0 7.5 6.2 9.8

1999.10 2.7 2.8 4.1 4.3 10.0 6.5 5.9 9.0

3 Source: EUROSTAT News Release N° 1/99 (figures for Greece are not available). EUROSTAT uses the ILOdefinition of unemployment for its estimations.


8

In Sweden, the Netherlands, Greece, Finland, the UK, Portugal, Ireland, Denmark and Italy, positivelabour market developments are mirrored by greater public optimism year-on-year. In some of thesecountries, the proportion of people who believe the year to come will be better rose by more than 15percentage points (Sweden: +20; the Netherlands: +17). In others, the proportion of people whobelieve the year to come will be worse fell by more than 15 percentage points (the UK: -25; Greece: -20). Greater public optimism is also noted in Belgium and Luxembourg despite a small increase inunemployment levels in these two countries. Germany is the only country where people are now morelikely to be pessimistic. This is particularly the case in the new Länder where the proportion of peoplewho believe the year to come will be worse rose from 43% in 1998 to 54% in 1999. (Table 1.5a)

Expectations for the year 2000:Country's employment situation

5453

4943

3428

2626

26

24242323

191919

342938

4444

3740

38

37

4031

4931

4745

33

512

910

1521

2327

28

2934

2340

2329

40

IRLS

FINNL

EP

UKB

EU15

FI

DKGR

LAD




EU citizens are even more positive when it comes to their personal job situation. At the end of 1999,24% expect their own job situation to get better and 61% expect it to remain the same. Only 5% ofEuropeans expect it to get worse in 2000, the lowest figure obtained since the Eurobarometer beganmeasuring this expectation at the end of 1994. At that time, people's expectations were moreextreme, with a larger segment of the population expecting it to get better (28%) or worse (14%).

Spain tops the list in the proportion of people who believe their personal job situation will get better in2000 (31%), followed by Sweden, Italy, Ireland, and Greece (all 29%). While the feeling that 2000 willget better is least widespread in Germany and Austria (both 17%), the mood in these two countries isfar from pessimistic. The large majority of people in these two countries believe their personal jobsituation will remain the same (65% and 63%, respectively) and less than 1 person in 10 believes itwill get worse. The incidence of pessimistic expectations is below 10% in all other countries, with theexception of Greece where 13% of the people believe their personal job situation will get worse in2000. However, the increase in optimism since last year is (together with Portugal) highest in thiscountry (+9). People in Belgium (+7) are now also significantly more likely to believe their personal jobsituation will get better. (Table 1.6a)


9

28%

21% 20%23% 22% 24%

-14%-9% -11%

-8% -7% -5%

End 1994 End 1995 End 1996 End 1997 End 1998 End 1999

0%

20%

40%

60%

-20%

-40%

-60%

Expectations for "the year to come":Personal job situation - EU15


*

*


Worse

Percentage "don't know" and "same" not shown

Better

Note : End 1990 - End 1995 : EU12* Change to the question from previous years: "same", is no longer a spontaneous reply but is clearly offered

Expectations for the year 2000:Personal job situation

312929292928

26

24

242322222120

1717

6163

5857

5452

63

61

6062

7358

5771

6563

33

53

137

4

5

64

36

34

78

ESI

IRLGR

PF

EU15

NLB

DKUK

LFIN

DA




People's expectations about the year to come not only vary from country to country but also dependon a number of socio-demographic factors. Men tend to be more optimistic than women and levels ofoptimism increase with education but decrease with age. Young and well-educated people tend to bemore likely than older and less well-educated people to consider their country's membership to the EUas a good thing. Thus, we find that people who support their country's membership are more likely tobelieve that 2000 will be better than people who oppose their country’s membership of the EU. (Seetables 1.2b, 1.3b, 1.4b, 1.5b and 1.6b)


10

1.3. European and national identity

There are many EU citizens who say they feel European when asked how they see themselves in thenear future. Although only 4% of EU citizens view themselves as exclusively European; in 8 of the 15Member States the majority of people feel somewhat European.

European and National Identity

41

56

53

48

42

49

42

42

37

42

38

37

38

35

32

24

11

9

6

7

8

5

6

5

8

2

4

3

2

3

4

3

20

6

4

4

7

1

4

3

4

2

3

3

1

1

2

3

23

26

31

39

41

44

45

47

48

52

53

56

60

61

61

67

LI

EFB

NL

EU15

ADP

IRLDKGRFIN

SUK

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 1.7

% European only

% Nationality and European% European and nationality% Nationality only

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999Percentage "don't know" not shown

NET RESULTSFeeling European vs

Nationality only

49

45

32

20

16

11

7

1

-8

-8

-13

-19

-23

-37

-22

3

Because Luxembourg contains a high proportion of citizens from other EU countries, we once againfind that people in this country are most likely to feel European only. At 20%, these people representa significant minority. In all other countries, less than 10% of the population feels European only.Apart from Luxembourg (72%), the 7 other countries where a majority of people feel to some extentEuropean are Italy (71%), Spain (63%), France (59%), Belgium (57%), the Netherlands (55%), Austria(50%) and Germany (49%). In the other 7 countries, a majority of people identify only with their ownnationality, although in Portugal (52%) and Ireland (53%) this majority is very small. In the UK (67%),Sweden, Finland (both 61%), Greece (60%) and, to a slightly lesser extent, Denmark (56%), nationalidentity is clearly the prevalent sentiment.

Looking at time-trends shows that this issue is very static and that the public generally does notbecome more likely to feel more European and less likely to identify with their own nation (or viceversa) from one measurement to the next unless a specific event occurs in between measurementswhich influences their views. This is, for instance, the case in Greece where people are nowsignificantly more likely to identify with their own nationality than they were in the autumn of 1998(+10). A likely explanation for this increase is the Kosovo war, which sparked anti-EU sentimentsamong the Greek population. (Table 1.7)

The Eurobarometer also measures whether people agree or disagree that there is a European culturalidentity that is shared by all Europeans4.

4 People were offered 5 answer options: completely agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, completelydisagree and don't know.


11

There is a European cultural identity shared by all Europeans

49 4743 42 41 41 40 39 38 36 36 35 35 34

3128

4237

4347

53

42 4450 49

59 59

5257

43

65

53

GR P D I S IRL A L EU15 DK F B NL E FIN UK0

20

40

60

80

100%

% Completely + slightly agree % Slightly + completely disagree

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 1.8Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999


People in Greece (49%) and Portugal (47%) are most likely to agree with the statement that there is aEuropean cultural identity that is shared by all Europeans, followed by people in Germany (43%) andItaly (42%). People in Finland (65%), France and Denmark (both 59%) are the most likely to disagree.Although we find lower levels of agreement among nations where there are more Eurosceptic people,feeling European and believing in the existence of a shared European cultural identity do not go handin hand. (Table 1.8)

On a related issue, national pride ranges from 67% in Germany to 97% in Greece. (Table 1.9a)

National pride

97 96 94 92 92 9188 86 86 86 85 84 83 83

73

67

3 25 7 7 8 8

128

11 13 13 13 11

24 25

GR IRL UK DK FIN P E NL A S F I EU15 L B D0

20

40

60

80

100

% Very + fairly proud % Not very + not at all proud



%


12

There is very little variation between the various socio-demographic groups in the population.Managers, the unemployed (both 77%) and people who stayed in school until the age of 20 or older(77%) are the only groups where less than 8 in 10 people say they are very or fairly proud of theirnationality. (Table 1.9b)

1.4. Satisfaction with democracy

In the spring of 1999, levels of satisfaction with the way democracy works in the respective MemberStates were significantly more positive than those obtained a year earlier. The two factors that wereoffered as explanations for this significant improvement were the war in Kosovo and media coverageof elections in the months leading up to the fieldwork period. The autumn 1999 measurement shows aslight drop in satisfaction levels from 60%5 to 56%.

Satisfaction with national democracy

77 75

69 68 66 64 63 63 6259 57 57 56 56

53

2722 24

27 2825

3430

3328

38 39 41 40 40

46

70

NL DK A E L S IRL FIN UK D B F EU15 P GR I0

20

40

60

80

100%

% Very satisfied + fairly satisfied % Not very satisfied + not at all satisfied



The country by country analysis shows that people in the Netherlands (77%) and Denmark (75%) aremost likely to be satisfied with the way democracy works in their country. Italians continue to be themost sceptical (27%): it is the only country where less than half of the population is satisfied. (Table1.10)

In the spring of 1999, we also recorded a significant improvement in satisfaction levels with the waydemocracy works in the European Union. The main explanation for this improvement was theresignation of the European Commission on 15 March 1999 which served as proof that there aresystems in place to ensure that the European Union works in a democratic way. The results fromautumn 1999 show that satisfaction levels are still higher than they were prior to the Commission’sresignation - although they are slightly lower than they were immediately following the event.

5 See Eurobarometer Report 51 – table 3.1.


13

61 60

51

60

48

3843 42 43 41 43

39 37

30 32

19

59 58

5249 48 48

40 40 39 38 36 35 34 32 3128

E IRL P L B A I EU15 F GR NL D FIN DK UK S0

20

40

60

80

100%

% Very satisfied + fairly satisfied in Spring 1999 % Very satisfied + fairly satisfied in Autumn 1999

Source: Survey no. 51.0 - Fieldwork Mar - Apr 1999Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999


Satisfaction with national democracy in the EU

The graph above shows that people in Spain (59%), Ireland (58%) and Portugal (52%) are most likelyto be satisfied with the way democracy works in the European Union, while people in Sweden (28%),the UK (31%) and Denmark (32%) are least likely to share this view. Significant improvements arerecorded in Austria (+10) and Sweden (+9), while people in Luxembourg (-11) and the Netherlands (-7) are significantly less likely to be satisfied with the way democracy works in the European Union.(Table 1.11a)

The demographic analyses show that men and women are equally likely to feel satisfied with the waydemocracy works in the European Union but that men are more likely than women to feel dissatisfied(44% vs. 37%) since women are more likely to lack an opinion. The likelihood that a person issatisfied increases with education and decreases with age. Among the various occupational groups,white-collar employees are most likely to feel satisfied with the way democracy works in the EuropeanUnion: retired people are most likely to be dissatisfied. The proportion of "don't know" responsesvaries greatly and to a certain extent explains the differences in satisfaction levels. Supporters of theEuropean Union are significantly more likely to be satisfied (53%) than people who regard theircountry’s membership as a bad thing (16%). (Table 1.11b)


14

2. Information about and knowledge of the EU

As the title already highlights, the questions discussed in this chapter all relate either to informationabout the European Union or people’s knowledge about it. In terms of information, we look at howmuch attention people pay to news about the EU in comparison to news about other issues. We alsolook at the sources people are most likely to use when they look for information about the EuropeanUnion and which sources of information they prefer. In terms of knowledge, we examine how muchpeople feel they know about the EU and how aware they are of a number of EU institutions andbodies. We end the chapter with a brief examination of awareness levels of the autumn 1999Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

2.1. Interest in news about the European Union

In this section, we look at the extent to which people pay attention to news about the European Unionin relation to a number of other areas. We begin, however, by looking at some behavioural dataconcerning people’s news intake.

8580

74717171

6969

69

6867

656564

6258

914

161919

1723

20

19

1922

2224

2123

21

44

7658

67

7

86

79

108

12

124

2431

3

3

34

42

45

4

111

12212

2

112

123

4

FINI

SGR

EUKDKNL

EU15

IRLDLAPBF

% Everyday % Several times a week % Once or twice a week % Less often % Never


News viewership on television


As the graph above shows, 69% of respondents say they watch the news on television on a dailybasis, with a further 19% watching it several times a week1.

1 See also table 2.1a.


15

7473

60595858

544948

43

353333

2618

15

1011

211619

1615

1915

17

1821

1720

1513

88

99

98

1418

15

14

1519

1716

1815

66

78

9911

109

13

1515

1815

2320

223

95

964

12

13

1813

1623

2637

FINSA

NLDL

DKIRLUK

EU15

BI

FEP

GR


Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 2.1b Percentage "don't know" not shownSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

News readership of daily papers

Around 6 in 10 respondents read the news in daily newspapers every day (43%) or several times aweek (17%)2.

666564

6257565554

44

41

3737

3330

2316

1020

1618

21131617

21

17

1616

1717

1515

87

105

6977

12

9

1110

715

1112

96

7713

1612

1512

17

1619

1822

2520

624

73

69

611

16

1919

2416

2537

DKA

IRLLD

FINNL

SB

EU15

UKFEPI

GR


Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 2.1c Percentage "don't know" not shownSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

News listenership on the radio

Listening to the news on the radio is also a fairly common activity among EU citizens, with nearly 6 in10 respondents doing this every day (41%) or several times a week (17%)3.

In order to assess how interested Europeans are in news about the European Union, the survey askedrespondents whether they pay a lot of attention, a little attention or no attention at all to news in 8areas, one of them being the European Union.

2 See also table 2.1b.3 See also table 2.1c.


16

51

36

33

28

26

25

20

16

41

50

33

47

49

53

47

50

8

13

33

24

24

21

32

33

Social issues

The environment

Sport

Culture

The economy

Politics

The European Union

% A lot of attention % A little attention % No attention at all

How much attention do people pay to newsin the following areas?

(EU15)


Foreign policy/international affairs

Percentage "don't know" not shownSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Among the areas included in the survey, people are most likely to pay attention to news about socialissues: around half of all EU citizens say they pay a lot of attention to news in this area. News aboutthe environment comes in second place, with 36% of respondents saying they pay a lot of attentionand another 50% saying they pay a little attention. Around three-quarters of EU citizens pay attentionto news about politics, news about the economy and news about cultural issues. Two-thirds of thepeople surveyed said they paid attention to news about the European Union. The same rates wereobtained for news about foreign policy and sport, although the results indicate that people are leastlikely to pay a lot of attention to news about the EU.

392727

2522

1918

16

141413121212

87

4650

5958

5364

62

50

4537

5341

5956

5057

1422

1316

2216

19

33

4048

3345

2831

4035

AGR

IDK

LFIN

S

EU15

IRLUK

BDEFP

NL

% Paying a lot of attention % Paying a little attention % Paying no attention at all

Interest in European Union news



17

As the graph above shows, people in Austria are by far most likely to pay a lot of attention (39%) tonews about the European Union. In Greece, Italy (both 27%), and Denmark (25%) around a quarterof the people say they pay attention this frequently. People in the UK (48%), Germany (45%) Portugaland Ireland (both 40%) are most likely to say they do not pay any attention to news about theEuropean Union. As we will see later, there is a clear relationship between paying attention to EUnews and knowledge about the European Union. (Table 2.2)

2.2. Sources of information about the European Union

When EU citizens look for information about the European Union, they are most likely to turn to themedia. More than 7 in 10 respondents say they switch on the television when they look forinformation, 46% of respondents read the daily newspapers and 30% listen to the radio4. The onlyother EU information source chosen by more than 2 in 10 respondents is discussions with relatives,friends and colleagues (23%). 16% of respondents never look for information about the EuropeanUnion5.

71

46

30

23

17

11

6

4

2

2

3

2

1

1

16

2

1

Source: Eurobarometer 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 2.3

Which sources do people use when they look forinformation about the EU?

(EU15)

Television

Daily newspapers

Radio

Discussions with relatives, friends,colleagues

Other newspaper, magazines

Books, brochures,information leaflets

Internet

Notice boards in libraries, townhalls, stations, post offices

Meetings

Trade unions or professionalassociations

EU-information offices, Euro info-Centres,Euro info-points, Euro libraries

Other organisations

Specialised national or regionalgovernment information offices

Contact with a member of EuropeanParliament or of national Parliament

Never look for such information /not interested

Other

Don't know

4 Respondents were shown a card listing 14 sources or type of sources and were asked to name all those theyuse when they look for information about the European Union. They could also mention other sources, saythat they never look for information about the EU (not interested) or say they don't know.

5 Table 2.3 shows the responses for each of the 15 Member States.


18

As on previous surveys, respondents were also asked to indicate their preferred method(s) ofreceiving information about the European Union, from a list of 11 pre-defined sources. Three mediasources are most preferred. Nearly 6 in 10 respondents say they prefer the television, around 3 in 10say they prefer daily newspapers and 2 in 10 respondents list the radio as a preferred source. Thenewer non-printed information tools, such as videotapes, the Internet (both 7%), CD-ROMs (5%) andcomputer databases (3%) remain less popular than printed sources6.

57%

33%

22%

19%

18%

9%

9%

7%

7%

5%

3%

5%

5%

3%

From the television

From daily newspapers

From the radio

A more detailed brochure

A short leaflet

From other newspapers, magazines

A book giving a complete description

A video tape

On the Internet

A CD-ROM

From databases on a computer terminal

I do not want information

Don't know

None of these ways


Preferred method for receiving information about the EU(EU15)

2.3. Self-perceived knowledge of the European Union

As we have seen earlier, most Europeans do not pay a lot of attention to news about the EuropeanUnion. Hence, it is not surprising to find that most people do not feel very knowledgeable about theUnion, although there have been some small increases in several countries7. The EU15 resultspresented in the table below show that only 26% of EU citizens feel they know quite a lot to a greatdeal about the European Union (i.e. those choosing the numbers 6 to 10 on the scale).

6 Table 2.4 shows the responses for each of the 15 Member States.7 Respondents were asked: "how much do you feel you know about the European Union, its policies, its

institutions and bodies" and were asked to select from a card a number - on a scale from 1 to 10 - which bestrepresents their perceived knowledge about the European Union. The higher the number they select, the morethey feel they know about the EU.


19

Self-perceived knowledge of

EU affairs

Spring 1999 (in %, EU15)

Scale %

1 (Know nothing at all) 10

2 12

3 16

4 15

5 18

6 12

7 8

8 4

9 1

10 (Know a great deal) 1

Don’t know 2

Average score 4.24

The country results show that self-perceived knowledge levels vary significantly from one MemberState to the next. The following graph depicts the average scores8 for each of the 15 countries.

5,254,8 4,71 4,68 4,52 4,44 4,37 4,36 4,29 4,27 4,27 4,24

3,95 3,76 3,58 3,4

A D DK L FIN I B GR F NL S EU15 IRL E P UK1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Average


Levels of perceived knowledge about the EU

Average scores are based on ascale of 1 - 10

"Knowa greatdeal"

"Knownothingat all"

As in the spring of 1999, knowledge levels are highest in Austria and lowest in the UK. (The averagescores range from a low of 3.4 in the UK to a high of 5.25 in Austria.) These are the two countrieswhere people are, respectively, most and least likely to pay attention to news about the EuropeanUnion. In comparison to the spring, average knowledge levels have remained remarkably stable, withthe highest shift noted in the Netherlands (+.13)9.

8 The average scores, or means, show the central tendency of the responses and represent the sum of theresponses for each of the ten points on the scale times the value of each point divided by the total number ofresponses.

9 See Eurobarometer No. 51, figure and table 2.1.


20

An inspection of the distribution of responses shows that 43% of Austrians feel they know quite a lot toa great deal about the European Union, followed by 35% of people in Germany, 33% of people inLuxembourg, 31% of people in Finland and Belgium and 30% of people in Denmark, Italy and theNetherlands. Portugal (12%), the UK (17%) and Spain (18%) are the only 3 countries where less than2 in 10 people feel they know quite a lot to a great deal about the European Union. (Table 2.510)

The following table shows the average scores for various socio-demographic groups in the EU. Itshows that opinion leaders, managers, people who stayed in full-time education the longest and themost frequent users of the media are the groups that give themselves the highest score on the self-perceived knowledge scale. At the bottom of the table, we find people who score lowest on the MediaUse Index and the Opinion Leadership Index 11.

Average scores on perceivedknowledge scale for various groups at

the EU15 level

Group Score

Opinion Leadership Index: ++ 5.73

Managers 5.33

Educated up to age 20+ 5.05

Media Use Index:+++ 4.86

Self-employed 4.81

Opinion Leadership Index: + 4.80

Men 4.71

Employees 4.64

Students 4.48

Aged 40-54 4.43

Aged 25-39 4.33

Educated to age 16-19 4.27

Average for EU15 4.24

Media Use Index: ++ 4.19

Aged 55+ 4.13

Opinion Leadership Index: - 4.12

Retired 4.09

Aged 15-24 4.05

Manual workers 4.04

Women 3.81

Unemployed 3.75

Educated to age 15 or younger 3.61

Media Use Index: -- 3.55

House persons 3.47

Opinion Leadership Index: -- 3.24

Media Use Index: --- 2.91

10 To make the table easier to read, a recoded version of the scale is presented consisting of four categories:'know (almost) nothing' - points 1+2; 'know a bit' - points 3 to 5; 'know quite a lot' - points 6 to 8 and'know a great deal' - points 9+10.

11 See Appendix C.4 for a definition of these two indices.


21

Comparing these results with those obtained in the spring of 1999, we note that the gap betweenthose who feel most knowledgeable and those who feel least knowledgeable has narrowed from 3.09to 2.82. The rank order remains more or less unchanged.

2.4. Awareness of the European Union institutions and bodies

As in the previous survey, the public’s awareness of 9 of the European Union's institutions and bodieswas measured12. The institutions and bodies included in the survey are the European Parliament, theEuropean Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman13,the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the Committee of the Regions and theSocial and Economic Committee14.

The public is most likely to have heard of the European Parliament (91%), followed by the EuropeanCommission (78%) and the European Central Bank (69%). People are least likely to have heard ofthe two newest EU institutions and bodies - the Committee of the Regions (26%) and the Social andEconomic Committee (34%) - and the European Ombudsman (31%).

91

78

69

62

60

46

34

31

26

8

18

27

33

34

49

58

62

66

The European Commission

The European Central Bank

The Court of Justice

The Council of Ministers

The European Court of Auditors

The Social and Economic Committee

The European Ombudsman

The Committee of the Regions

% Yes % No

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 2.6 Percentage "don't know" not shownSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Have you ever heard of...?(EU15)

The European Parliament

At the EU15 level, awareness scores have not changed significantly since the spring of 1999 - therank order remains the same15. Looking at country level data shows that awareness levels for theEuropean Parliament range from 87% in Spain, Greece and the UK to 100% in Denmark. At least 9in 10 people in Denmark (97%), Finland (94%), Sweden (93%), Luxembourg (92%), Ireland (91%) andBelgium (90%) have heard of the European Commission . Spain (71%), Greece (72%), Germany andthe UK (both 73%) are the only countries where less than three-quarters of the people have heard ofit.

12 The question asks respondents whether they have ever heard of the institution in question. In chapter 5, theresults of a question measuring whether people have recently seen or heard something about the EuropeanParliament through the media are discussed.

13 Technically speaking, the Ombudsman does not have the status of an EU institution.14 Chapter 3 shows the extent to which people consider each of these institutions and bodies as important and

the extent to which people say they tend to trust them.15 See Eurobarometer No. 51, figure and table 2.2.


22

Awareness of the European Central Bank is once again most evident in the Netherlands (87%) andFinland (86%) and least evident in Greece (48%). People in Denmark (94%) and Luxembourg (86%)are most likely to have heard of the Court of Justice , while people in Italy (43%) and Spain (52%) areleast likely to know of its existence. People in Luxembourg (85%) and Sweden (81%) are most likelyto have heard of the Council of Ministers , while awareness levels are by far the lowest in the UK(38%). Awareness of the European Court of Auditors is most widespread in Austria (74%) andLuxembourg (73%) and least widespread in the UK (13%). In the Nordic countries - Denmark (23%)Finland (26%) and Sweden (34%) - awareness levels are also below average. People in Luxembourg(59%) are most likely to have heard of the Social and Economic Committee , while people in theNetherlands (20%) are least likely to have heard of it. As in the spring of 1999, the EuropeanOmbudsman - Jacob Söderman from Finland - is by far most recognised in his home country (77%).He is least recognised in Germany (18%). Familiarity with the Committee of the Regions is mostcommon in Portugal (47%), while people in the Netherlands (9%) are least likely to be aware of theexistence of this institution. (Table 2.6)

In order to provide a general impression of awareness levels in each of the Member States, we havecalculated an average by summing up the percentage of “aware” responses for each institution anddividing this by the total number of institutions and bodies (9) included in the survey. As the followingtable shows, awareness levels are highest in Luxembourg (where many of these institutions andbodies are located) and Finland (which held the EU Presidency at the time of the survey) and lowest inthe UK.

Awareness of the EU institutionsand bodies

(Average awareness levels for the 9institutions and bodies,

in % by country)

Country %

Luxembourg 73

Finland 68

Austria 67

Denmark 65

Ireland 65

Portugal 60

Sweden 59

France 59

Belgium 59

The Netherlands 58

Germany 58

Spain 56

EU15 55

Greece 53

Italy 52

United Kingdom 44

Awareness levels not only vary from country to country but also depend on how knowledgeablepeople feel they are about the European Union. The following table shows that the more people feelthey know about the EU, the more likely it is that they have heard of the EU institutions and bodies.


23

Awareness levels of the EU institutions and bodies by self-perceivedknowledge about the European Union (in %)

Institution/body:High

knowledgelevel

Averageknowledge

level

Lowknowledge

level

European Parliament 97% 96% 83%

European Commission 93% 87% 64%

European Central Bank 91% 79% 53%

Council of Ministers 86% 71% 41%

Court of Justice 84% 72% 45%

Court of Auditors 76% 55% 28%

Social & Economic Committee 67% 42% 19%

Committee of the Regions 56% 32% 14%

European Ombudsman 48% 36% 21%

2.5. Awareness and importance of the Council Presidency

Since 1986, the Eurobarometer has looked at the awareness and the perceived importance of theCouncil of Minister’s Presidency in the country that presides at the time of the survey16. Finland, whichjoined the EU in 1995, took on this role for the first time in the autumn of 1999.

As the following graph shows, 87% of Finns were aware that their country held the Presidency. This isthe highest ever awareness level recorded to date. 72% of people in Finland considered thePresidency an important event.

16 Each Member State of the European Union holds in turn the Presidency for a period of six months.


24

87%

82%

82%

82%

82%

81%

81%

79%

77%

74%

72%

71%

70%

68%

66%

63%

62%

55%

54%

54%

52%

51%

43%

41%

41%

36%

22%

72%

80%

75%

74%

71%

85%

57%

61%

65%

73%

78%

81%

75%

68%

73%

72%

61%

57%

73%

55%

64%

56%

64%

45%

64%

63%

59%

FIN 1999 (EB52)

GR 1994 (EB 41)

L 1991 (EB 35)

DK 1993 (EB 39)

NL 1997 (EB 47)

P 1992 (EB 37)

NL 1991 (EB 36)

DK 1987 (EB 28)

A 1998 (EB 50)

GR 1988 (EB 30)

E 1989 (EB 31)

IRL 1996 (EB 46)

IRL 1990 (EB 33)

L 1997 (EB 48)

E 1995 (EB 44)

I 1996 (EB 45)

B 1993 (EB 40)

D 1988 (EB 29)

I 1990 (EB 34)

D 1999 (EB51)

UK 1992 (EB 38)

B 1987 (EB 27)

F 1989 (EB 32)

D 1994 (EB 42)

F 1995 (EB 43)

UK 1998 (EB49)

UK 1986 (EB 26)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 2.7Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Awareness and importance of theCouncil Presidency

Awareness Importance

"Not aware/not important" and"don't know" not shown


25

3. Public opinion towards the EU at the turn of the year 2000

The last Eurobarometer survey carried out before the year 2000 reveals that people’s confidence inthe European Union has risen following a summer of change. In March 1999, the Commissionresigned. The war in Kosovo started a few weeks later. These events negatively affected publicopinion in the spring of 1999.

The pessimism of last spring has not persisted and, although not all ground lost following the events inMarch 1999 has been recovered, the mood is now more favourable. The public’s greater faith in theEuropean Union is no doubt linked to the many developments that have taken place since the spring.On the 1st of May the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force and the fifth direct elections to theEuropean Parliament were held on June 12 to 141. The new Commission President Romano Prodi2

presented his team of commissioners to the European Parliament on the 21st of July. In September,using its new powers vested in the Amsterdam Treaty3, the Parliament interviewed each of thecommissioners separately and approved the new Commission on September 15. Upon its investiture,the Commission presented a new code of conduct for commissioners and rules of proceduresconcerning the operation of the Commission. It also announced a far-reaching overall reformprogramme that will commence in the year 2000.

3.1. Support for European Union membership

In the autumn of 1999, 51% of Europeans support their country's membership of the European Union.This is higher than in the spring of that year (49%) but still lower than in the autumn of 1998, when54% of people regarded their country’s membership of the European Union as a good thing. Theproportion of people who regard their country's membership as a bad thing (13%) has not changedsignificantly.

BBB B B

B BB B B B

B BBBBB B B B B B

BBB B B

BB B B B B

BB B

B B B

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @

@

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@ @ @ @

@ @

@ @@@@@

@

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

13%

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Trend

27%


EBÿþýü

Membership "Good thing" *

Membership "Bad thing" *

Membership "Neither good nor bad" *

* EU average figure is for EU15 fromSpring 1995


Support for European Union membership1981 - 1999 EU AVERAGE

Following the all-time high of 72% recorded in the spring of 1991, public support for the EuropeanUnion dropped during the mid-nineties to reach a low of 46% in the spring of 1997. The Gulf War, theeconomic crisis and the high unemployment levels that followed, the debate on the Maastricht Treaty,

1 See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of these elections.2 Mr. Prodi’s nomination was approved by the European Parliament on 4 May 1999.3 More details about the Amsterdam Treaty can be found on the following Website:

http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/obj/amst/en/index.htm.


26

the war in Yugoslavia, the inclusion of three relatively Euro-sceptic nations and the BSE crisis are butsome of the reasons for this low level of confidence. Apart from the blip recorded last spring, supportfor EU membership has since been rising steadily. (See also individual country graphs, figs. 3.5a-o)

82%

81%

71%

68%

64%

60%

59%

54%

54%

51%

48%

47%

44%

42%

37%

29%

3%

3%

4%

4%

4%

6%

7%

6%

21%

13%

16%

12%

20%

18%

30%

24%

IRLL

NLPEI

GRB

DK

EU15

FD

FINAS

UK

Good thing Bad Thing

NET RESULTS

79

78

67

64

60

54

33

52

38

32

35

20

24

7

5


48

Percentage "don't know" and "neither good nor bad" not shown

Support for European Union membership

The country by country analyses show that support for European Union membership continues to behighest in Ireland (82%), Luxembourg (81%) and the Netherlands (71%). More than half of the peoplein Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Belgium and Denmark also support their country's membership of theEuropean Union, although opposition levels in Denmark (21%) are significantly above average. Asusual, support for EU membership is lowest in the UK (29%) and Sweden (37%), opposition levelsbeing highest (30%) in the latter country.

In 10 of the 15 Member States, public opinion is significantly more favourable than it was in the springof 1999. In descending order, the countries where people are now considerably more likely to regardtheir country’s membership of the EU as a good thing are Spain, Portugal (both +9), Belgium (+7),Austria (+6), Greece (+5), Ireland, Luxembourg (+4), Sweden, Denmark and Germany (all +3). InFrance, Finland and the UK, no significant changes are noted. People in the Netherlands and Italy arenow significantly more likely to consider their country’s membership as neither good nor bad (+4 and+3, respectively), at the expense of outright support. (Table 3.1a)

The well-established pattern for the two genders shows that men are more likely than women toregard their country's membership as a good thing (55% vs. 47%) and that women are significantlymore likely than men to lack an opinion (13% vs. 6%).

When it comes to explaining support for the European Union, education is one of the most importantsocio-demographic factors. Hence, we find that 65% of people who left full-time education aged 20 orolder support their country's membership, compared to only 42% of people who left school aged 15 oryounger. Age is another important factor, with people aged 15 to 24 significantly more likely (58%)than people aged 55 and over (44%) to support their country's membership. Analyses of theeconomic activity scale show a gap of 22 percentage points in support levels between managers(64%) and retired people (42%).


27

At the attitudinal level, we find a large division in opinion between people who desire a more importantrole for the European Union and those who desire a less important role. Among those who desire amore important role, 73% support their country’s membership, compared to only 22% of people whowant the EU to play a less important role. (Table 3.1b)

3.2. Benefit from European Union membership

At the EU15 level, we find that the public is now more likely than it was in the spring of 1999 to havean opinion on whether or not their country has benefited from EU membership. As such, we find asmall (albeit not significant) increase both in the proportion of citizens who feel that their country hasbenefited from EU membership and in the proportion of citizens who feel that their country has notbenefited (both +2).

�

��

��

��

�

��

� ��

�

��

�

� � ��

� � ��

�

@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@

@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@

@@

@@

@@ @

@@ @

@@

@

@

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

31%

46%

"Benefited" *

"Not benefited" *

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - TrendStandard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 3.3

EBÿþýü


Benefit from European Union membership1983-1999 EU AVERAGE

* EU average figure is for EU15 fromSpring 1995

People in Ireland are by far most likely to be of the opinion that their country has benefited (88%),followed at a distance by people in Portugal (77%). At least half of the people in Luxembourg, Greece,the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Italy and Belgium share this opinion. In Sweden and the UK, lessthan 3 in 10 people feel that their country has benefited from EU membership.

In comparison to spring 1999, results are significantly more positive in Spain (+13), Austria, Sweden(both +8), Luxembourg (+7), Belgium, Portugal (+6) and Greece (+3). No significant change isrecorded in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Ireland. In Finland, a drop of 3 percentagepoints in the proportion of people who feel their country has benefited is offset by a 1 percent increasein the proportion who feel Finland has not benefited and a 2 percent increase in don’t know responses.People in Italy (+7), the UK (+5) and France (+4) are now significantly more likely to feel that theircountry has not benefited. (Table 3.2a4)

Demographic analyses show that people who stayed in full-time education until age 20 or older andstudents (both 59%) are most likely to feel that their country has benefited, while retired people andthose who left school aged 15 or younger (both 39%) are least likely to share this view.

4 For the long-term trend in each of the Member States see graphs 3.6a-o.


28

88%

77%

72%

70%

65%

64%

61%

50%

50%

46%

46%

45%

40%

37%

29%

29%

3%

9%

12%

15%

20%

21%

16%

26%

28%

31%

31%

32%

41%

39%

42%

49%

IRLPL

GRNLDK

EI

B

EU15

FA

FIND

UKS

Benefited Not benefited

NET RESULTS

85

72

55

60

45

43

45

15

1513

-1

-2

-13

-20

2422


Benefit from European Union membership

The following comparison provides evidence of the large degree of polarisation among supporters andopponents of the European Union: 75% of people who support their country's membership believetheir country has benefited, compared to only 7% of those who oppose their country's membership.(Table 3.2b)


29

BELGIUM


1981 - 1999

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

� ��

��

� � � � � � � ��

� � ��

��

� � � ��

��

B

BBB

B

B BB

B B B B

B B B

B

BBBBBB

B B

B B

BB

B

B

BB

BBB B

BB B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

6%

54%

Year

EB

"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"

EU Average "Good Thing"

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5aSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Trend

"Neither good nor bad"

34%


(Belgium)

@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

�

��

��

��

�

��

� �

��

� ��

�

� �

�

�

� �

� � �

BBB B

BB B

B

B B

B

BB

BB

B B

BB

B B

B BB

B

BB

BB

B B

B B B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

28%

46%

"Benefited"

"Not benefited"

EU Average "Benefited"

Year

1983 - 1999(Belgium)


50%


Source: Survey no. 52.0 - TrendPercentage "don't know" not shown

EB


30

DENMARK

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

�

�

� ��

��

��

� � �

� �

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

�

B

B

BBB B B

BBB

B

B

BBBB

B

B B

B

BB B

B

B

BB

B B BBB

BB

BB B

B

B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

22%

54%

21%

(Denmark)1981 - 1999



"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




YearEB

@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

� � �

�

�

��

� ��

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

� ��

B

B

BB B

B

B

BB B

BB

B B

B

B

BB B

B

B B BB

BB B B

B

B

BB

B

B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

64%

21%

46%

1983 - 1999(Denmark)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6b



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"



YearEB


31

GERMANY

1981-1999 *

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

��

��

��

� ��

�

�

��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

� � ��

BB

BBB

BBBBB

BB

B

B

B

B

BB

B B

BBB

BB B

BB

BB

BB

B BBBB

BB

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

12%

47%

* Unified D as of Autumn 1990

30%

(Germany)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5c


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




YearEB

1983-1999 *

@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

�

� ��

��

�

��

�

�

��

�

� �

��

��

�

� ��

��

B

BB

B B

B B B

B

B BB

B

BB

B

BB

B BB

B B

BB

BB B

B B BB

BB

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

46%

37%39%

(Germany)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6c



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"



* Unified D as of Autumn 1990

YearEB


32

GREECE

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

� ��

� � � ��

��

�

B

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B B

B

B

BB

B

B

B B

B B B BB B

BB

B

B BB

B B

B

BB B B

B

B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

59%

7%

51%

28%

(Greece)1981 - 1999

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5d


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




YearEB

@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

� �

��

��

� �

�

� ��

�

�

��

��

� �

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

BB

B BB

B BB

B

B

BB B B

B

B

BB

BB

B

B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

70%

15%

46%

1983 - 1999(Greece)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6d



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"



YearEB


33

SPAIN

1981-1999 *

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

��

� � ��

��

�

B

B

B BBBBB

BB

B

BB

B

B B

B

B

BBB

B

B

B

BBBBBB

BB

BBBBB

B

B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

4%

64%

*1981 -1985 "would be"

23%

(Spain)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5e


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




YearEB

@ @

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

� �

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

� ��

�

B

B

B

B

B BB B

B

B

B

BB

BB

BB

BB

B

B B BB

B

BB

B

B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16%

61%

46%

1986 - 1999

Year

(Spain)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6e



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"



EB


34

FRANCE

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

�

�

� ��

� � � ��

��

� � � ��

��

�

� � � ��

BB

BBBBB

B B

BBBB

BB

BB B

BBBB

BBB B B

B

B

B B B

BB B B

BB

B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

16%

48%

30%

(France)1981 - 1999

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5f


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




YearEB

@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

� �

��

��

� � � ��

��

B

BB

B

B BB

B

B BB

B BB B B B

B B BB

B BB

B

BB

B B B BB

B

B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

31%

46%

(France)1983 - 1999

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6f



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"



YearEB


35

IRELAND

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

�

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � � � ��

B

B

B

BBBB B

B

BBB B

B

B B

BB

B

BBBB B

B

BB B

BBB B

B BBBB B B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

82%

3%

51%

8%

(Ireland)1981 - 1999

YearEB

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5g


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

� � ��

��

��

�

�

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

�

B

B

BB B

B B

B

B

B

B

BB

B

BB B

B BB

BB B

BB

B

B B BB B

B B B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

88%

3%

46%

1983 - 1999

Year

(Ireland)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6g



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"



EB


36

ITALY

60%

51%

25%

6%

(Italy)1981 - 1999

YearEB

"Bonne chose"

Moyenne européenne "bonne chose"

"Une chose ni bonne ni mauvaise"

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

� ��

��

� � � � � � ��

� � � ��

� � ��

��

� � � �

B

B

BBB

B B BB B

BB

B

B

B

B

BBB B

BB B

B

B BB B

BBB B

B

B

B

B B B

B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5h


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

��

��

� ��

� � � ��

� �

� ��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B

B

B BB

B

BB

B BB B

B B BB B

B BB

B

B

B

BB

B B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

26%

46%50%

1983 - 1999

YearEB

(Italy)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6h



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"




37

LUXEMBOURG

1981-1999

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

� ��

� ��

��

�

� � ��

��

��

��

�

BB

BB B B

BB B

BB B B

B

B

B BB B

BB

BB B B

BB B

B B

B BBBB

B B

B B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

81%

51%

12%

4%

(Luxembourg)

YearEB

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5i


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

� ��

��

�

�

� �

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

� �

BBB B B

B

BB

B

B

B B

BB

BB B B B

BB B

B

B B

BB

B

B

B

BB

BB

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

72%

12%

46%

(Luxembourg)1983 - 1999

YearEB

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6i



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"




38

THE NETHERLANDS

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � ��

B

BB B B

BB B B

B

B B

B

B B

BB

BB B B

B BB B

BBB B

BBBB B

BB B

BB

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

71%

4%

51%

22%

(The Netherlands)1981 - 1999

YearEB

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5j


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� �

��

�

�

��

B

BB

B BB B B

B

B

B

B

B BB

BB

B B BB

BB

B BB

B

B B B

BB B B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20%

65%

46%

1983 - 1999

YearEB

(The Netherlands)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6j



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"




39

AUSTRIA

@@

@

@ @@@@@

@

�

�

��

� ��

B

B

B

BB B B

BBB

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4898

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

18%

31%

42%

(Austria)1995 - 1999

YearEB

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5k


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




1995 - 1999

@@

@@

@ @@

@@

@�

�

��

� � �

��

�

B

B

BB B

BB

BB

B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4898

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

32%

45%46%

YearEB

(Austria)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6k



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"




40

PORTUGAL

1981-1999 *

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@

��

� � ��

� � � �

� � � � ��

� � � �

��

��

��

�

�

B

B

BB B

BBB B B

B

B

BB B

B

B B

B B

B

BB

BB

B

B

BB

B B

B

B

B BB

BB B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

68%

4%

51%

*1981 -1985 "would be"

19%

(Portugal)

YearEB

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5l


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




1986 - 1999

@ @

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

� �

��

� � ��

��

�

� ��

�

��

� � ��

��

�

B

B

B

B

B

B

B B BB

B

B B BB

B

B B B

B

BB

B BB B

B

BB

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

77%

9%

46%

(Portugal)

YearEB

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6l



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"




41

FINLAND

@@

@

@ @@@@@

@

��

��

� ��

B BB

BBBBB

B B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

20%

44%

31%

(Finland)1995 - 1999

YearEB

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5m


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




@@

@@

@ @@

@@

@� �

� ��

��

��B B

BB

B B BB

BB

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4797

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

40%

46%41%

1995 - 1999(Finland)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6m



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"



YearEB


42

SWEDEN

@@

@

@ @@@@@

@

�

�

�

��

�

��

B

B

BBB B

B BB B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51%

37%

31%30%

(Sweden)1995 - 1999

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5n


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




Year

EB

@@

@@

@ @@

@@

@

�

��

� ��

�

��

�

B

B

BB B B

B B

B

B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

29%

46%49%

1995 - 1999(Sweden)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6n



"Benefited"

"Not benefited"



YearEB


43

UNITED KINGDOM

51%

29%28%24%

(United Kingdom)1981 - 1999

YearEB

"Bonne chose"

Moyenne européenne "bonne chose"

"Une chose ni bonne ni mauvaise"

@ @@ @ @

@ @ @@ @

@@ @ @

@

@

@ @ @ @@@@@

@@@@

@@@ @

@ @@@@@

@�

�

��

��

� ��

�

� ��

��

� ��

�� B

BB B

B B

BBB B B B

B BB

B

B BB B B

B BB

B

B

B B B BB B

B B B B

BB

B

1681

1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.5o


"Good Thing"

"Bad Thing"




@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@@

@@

@ @ @ @@

@@

@@

@ @@

@ @@

@ @@

@@

@

�

�

� ��

��

��

�

�

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

�

B

BB B B

B BB

B

B

B

BB

B B B BB B

B

BB

BB B

B

B

BB

B BB

B

B

1983

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

M96

4696

4897

5098

5199

5299

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

29%

42%46%

1983 - 1999(United Kingdom)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.6o



"Benefited"

"Not benefited" EU Average "Benefited"


YearEB


44

3.3. The speed of European integration

Since 1986, the Eurobarometer has measured public opinion with regard to the speed of Europeanintegration by asking respondents the following question:

a. In your opinion, what is the current speed of building Europe? Please lookat these people (show card). N°1 is standing still; N°7 is running as fast aspossible. Choose the one which best corresponds with your opinion of thecurrent speed of building Europe.

b. And which corresponds best with what you would like? (Show same card)

The speed at which Europe is perceived to be built has increased since 1996 from an average scoreof 3.4 (on a scale of 1 to 7) to an average score of 4.0. The desired speed, on the other hand, hasremained more or less unchanged during the last few years. The gap between the perceived anddesired speed has become considerably smaller since the question was first asked in 1986. As thefigure below shows, the latest measurement shows a net score difference of 0.8 compared to adifference of 2.1 in 1986.

The "Euro-dynamometer"(EU12/EU15 average on 7-point scale - trend)

1986Oct

1987Oct

1990Oct

1992Mar

1993May

1993Oct

1994Apr

1994Dec

1995May

1995May

1995Dec

1996Feb

1996Dec

1997Oct

1998Oct

1999Oct

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Current Desired

EU15EU12

Europe's ProgressPerceived current speed, desired speed

(EU15)

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 3.7a

1 = Stand still7 = As fast as possible

* Scale-value difference: "desired" minus "current"

2.1 * 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


45

The perceived speed of unification varies considerably from country to country. It is highest in Ireland(4.7) and Spain (4.6) and lowest in Belgium (3.6), Sweden and Italy (both 3.7). In a number ofcountries, the perceived speed has slightly increased since the question was last asked in autumn1998. These are the UK (+.13), Sweden (+.11), Portugal (+.10), Spain (+0.9), Denmark (+.07), theNetherlands (+.04), Austria (-.02), Finland (+.02) and Italy (+.01). Significant decreases in theperceived speed are recorded in Luxembourg (-.43) and Belgium (-.27) with smaller decreases notedin Germany (-.12), Ireland (-.09), Greece (-.07) and France (-.04). (Table 3.3a)

People in Portugal would like Europe to be built at the fastest speed (5.9), followed by people inGreece (5.7), Italy (5.6) and Spain (5.4). The desired speed is lowest in Denmark, Finland (both 4.0),the UK (4.1) Sweden and Germany (both 4.3). Since the autumn of 1998, the desired speed hasincreased most in Belgium (+.44), Luxembourg, Sweden (both +.16) and Germany (+.13). Thehighest, albeit negligible, decrease is noted in Greece (-.13). (Table 3.3b)

As the graph below shows, the gap between the speed at which Europe is perceived to beprogressing and the speed at which people desire it to progress varies significantly from country tocountry. In most countries, people would like to see Europe built at a faster speed than what theyperceive it to be, with the largest positive net score found in Italy, Greece, Portugal and Belgium. InDenmark and Finland, there is a small negative net score between the perceived and desired speed.

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 3.7b

4,7 4,64,4 4,3 4,2 4,2 4,2

4 4 4 4 3,9 3,93,7 3,7 3,6

5,15,4

4 4

5,9

4,7

4,3

4,9 4,8 4,84,6

5,7

4,1

5,6

4,3

5,1

IRL E DK FIN P A D L F EU15 NL GR UK I S B1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Average current speed Average desired speed

The "Euro-dynamometer"Europe's Progress

Perceived current speed, desired speed

* Scale-value difference "desired" minus "current"

0,4* 0,8 -0,4 -0,3 1,7 0,5 0,1 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,6 1,8 0,2 1,9 0,6 1,5

"Runs as fastas possible"

"Stand still"


The following table shows the average speed at which the various socio-demographic groups in thepopulation believe Europe is currently progressing, how fast they would like it to progress and thedifference for each socio-demographic group between the desired and perceived speed. Decreasingdifference scores ranks the figures in the table. Although there is some difference between thevarious groups, all would like Europe to progress faster than they feel it is currently progressing. Thisindicates that socio-demographic factors do not contribute as strongly as the country variable does tovariations in people's feelings about the perceived and desired speed of Europe's progress.


46

"The Euro-Dynamometer"Average scores for the socio-demographic groups (EU15)

Socio-demographicgroup:

Average currentspeed

Average desiredspeed

Difference desiredminus current

Still studying 4.13 5.30 1.17

Aged 15-24 4.13 5.16 1.03

Self-employed 4.03 5.00 0.97

House-persons 4.06 4.94 0.88

In school until 20+ 4.09 4.95 0.86

White-collar employees 4.08 4.91 0.83

Men 4.03 4.81 0.78

Managers 4.05 4.81 0.76

EU15 Average 4.04 4.80 0.76

Aged 25-39 4.08 4.83 0.75

Women 4.04 4.79 0.75

Aged 40-54 4.01 4.76 0.75

Unemployed 4.00 4.73 0.73

In school until 15 < 3.97 4.69 0.72

Aged 55 and over 3.97 4.62 0.65

Retired 3.93 4.58 0.65

In school until 16-19 4.04 4.68 0.64

Manual workers 4.06 4.59 0.53

The next table shows how people's views towards the European Union in general relate to theirfeelings about further integration.

"The Euro-Dynamometer"Average scores among people with pro-, neutral and anti-EU attitudes

(EU15)

Pro-EU attitudes: Average currentspeed

Average desiredspeed

Differencedesired minus

current

Desires more important role of EU 3.98 5.52 1.54

EU membership is a good thing 4.13 5.35 1.22

Neutral EU attitudes:

EU membership is neither goodnor bad

3.90 4.55 0.65

EU's role should not change 4.12 4.37 0.25

Anti-EU attitudes:

EU membership is a bad thing 3.93 3.05 -0.88

Desires less important role of EU 4.19 3.35 -0.84


47

As expected, people with pro-European views would like Europe to progress faster than it currentlydoes, whereas people with anti-European views would like it to progress slower than it currently does.People with neutral views are most likely to believe that Europe's actual progress is on par with thespeed at which they would like it to progress. Thus, general attitudes to the European Union areclearly good predictors of how people feel about the speed of European integration.

3.4. The institutions and bodies of the European Union

For the second time in a row, the Eurobarometer has examined public opinion towards a number ofthe Union’s institutions and bodies5. Respondents were first of all asked whether they think 9 of theUnion's institutions and bodies play an important role or not in the life of the European Union.

As the following graph shows, people are most likely to believe that the European Parliament (75%),the European Commission (68%) and the European Central Bank (65%) play an important role in thelife of the European Union. People are now slightly more likely to believe these institutions and bodiesplay an important role than they were in spring 19996. The public is least likely to believe that theEuropean Ombudsman and the Committee of the Regions (both 33%) play an important role.

75

68

65

59

56

48

40

33

33

10

10

10

13

14

15

17

19

20










% Important % Not important


The role of the institutions and bodies in the life of the EU(EU15)

The country by country analyses show that the proportion of people who feel that the EuropeanParliament plays an important role in the life of the European Union is highest in Ireland (87%),Luxembourg and Sweden (both 85%) and lowest in the UK (65%) and Germany (69%). As for theEuropean Commission , Ireland (84%) and Luxembourg (83%) also top the list: the UK (55%) andGermany (60%) are once again at the bottom. People in the Netherlands are most likely to feel thatthe European Central Bank , which is headed by a Dutchman, plays an important role (87%), whilepeople in the UK (45%) are least likely to share this view. (Table 3.4)

5 Public awareness of these institutions and bodies is discussed in chapter 2.6 See Eurobarometer Report 51, table 3.4.


48

For each of the Member States, the following table shows the median percentage 7 of people thatbelieves the 9 institutions and bodies play an important role in the life of the European Union. As canbe seen, the highest median score is recorded for Luxembourg (73%) and Finland (71%), while thelowest score is obtained for the UK (32%). However, this does not necessarily mean that the Britishare more likely to feel that the institutions and bodies do not play an important role. Rather, we findthat people in the UK are most likely to lack an opinion, since 48% opt for the “don’t know” responsecategory, compared to only 20% of the people in Finland.

Importance of the EU institutionsand bodies

(Median score - % saying important forthe 9 institutions and bodies,

by country)

Country Median

Luxembourg 73

Finland 71

Sweden 70

The Netherlands 70

Ireland 68

Portugal 63

Austria 63

Belgium 60

France 59

Spain 58

EU15 56

Germany 56

Denmark 56

Greece 53

Italy 51

United Kingdom 32

Respondents were also asked whether they trust the 9 institutions and bodies. Although trust levelsvary significantly between the 15 Member States, the first thing to note is the high proportion of “don’tknow” responses, particularly for the Committee of the Regions, the Social and Economic Committeeand the European Ombudsman. The high proportion of "don't know" responses should thus be takeninto consideration when interpreting the low trust levels shown in the following visual.

7 The median is a measure of central tendency that is useful in distributions with a few extreme values.


49

(EU15)

53

45

45

44

38

35

29

28

25

27

24

30

25

29

24

24

23

25










% Tend to trust % Tend not to trust

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 3.9a Percentage "don't know" not shownSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Trust in EU institutions and bodies

At 53%, the European Parliament receives the most widespread trust, with the Court of Justice andthe European Commission in second and third place, respectively (both 45%). However, theCommission also receives the highest proportion of people who say they tend not to trust it (30%).This figure is, however, lower than it was in the spring of 1999 (33%8).

The next table shows the three most widely trusted institutions and bodies in each Member State. TheEuropean Parliament tops the list in 10 of the 15 Member States, comes in second place in threefurther countries and comes in third place in Finland. The Netherlands is the only country where itdoes not make the top three.

The Court of Justice tops the list in Denmark (65%), Sweden (52%) and Germany (50%). It comes insecond place in the Netherlands (69%), Luxembourg (57%), Finland (53%), Austria (49%) and the UK(27%) and in third place in Ireland (55%), Belgium (47%) and Greece (43%).

The European Commission comes in second place in Italy (63%), Portugal (62%), Ireland (60%)Spain (54%), Belgium (53%), France (50%) and Greece (49%) and in third place in Luxembourg(52%) and the UK (24%).

The European Central Bank tops the list in the Netherlands (76%) and comes third in Austria,Germany (both 46%), France (45%) and Sweden (43%) and Denmark (40%).

The Council of Ministers comes in third place in Portugal (54%), Italy (53%) and Spain (49%).

The European Ombudsman , who is Finnish, tops the list in his home country (56%) but does notmake the top three in any of the other Member States. None of the other institutions and bodies makethe top three. (See also table 3.5)

8 See Eurobarometer Report 51, table 3.6.


50

TOP THREE MOST WIDELY TRUSTED EU INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES(IN %, BY MEMBER STATE)

Belgium Luxembourg

European Parliament 57 European Parliament 58

European Commission 53 Court of Justice 57

Court of Justice 47 European Commission 52

Denmark The Netherlands

Court of Justice 65 European Central Bank 76

European Parliament 51 Court of Justice 69

European Central Bank 40 Court of Auditors 55

Germany Austria

Court of Justice 50 European Parliament 52


European Central Bank 46 European Central Bank 46

Greece Portugal


European Commission 49 European Commission 62

Court of Justice 43 Council of Ministers 54

Spain Finland

European Parliament 63 European Ombudsman 56


Council of Ministers 49 European Parliament 53

France Sweden


European Commission 50 European Parliament 43

European Central Bank 45 European Central Bank 43

Ireland United Kingdom



Court of Justice 55 European Commission 24

Italy

European Parliament 71

European Commission 63

Council of Ministers 53

The detailed country results for the European Parliament show that people in Italy are most likely totrust it (71%), followed by people in Ireland and Portugal (both 66%). People in Denmark (42%),Sweden (40%) and the UK (39%) are most likely to lack trust in the European Parliament. Theproportion of “don’t know” responses ranges from 7% in Denmark to 33% in the UK.

The visual also shows that trust levels have increased significantly in a number of Member Statessince the spring of 1999. The highest increases are recorded in Ireland (+11), Italy, Portugal, Greece(all +6), Germany and Sweden (both +5). People in Luxembourg are now significantly less likely totrust the European Parliament (-10). Finland (-5) and the UK (-4) are the only other two countrieswhere trust levels are now lower than they were in the spring of 1999.


51

6560

5559

55

68

53 5458

51 50 48 4843

38

32

7166 66

63 6158 57

54 53 53 53 52 5148

43

28

I P IRL E GR L B F FIN NL EU15 A DK D S UK0

20

40

60

80

100%

% "Tend to trust" in Spring 1999 % "Tend to trust" in Autumn 1999



Trust in the European Parliament


The country by country results for the European Commission reveal that around 6 in 10 people inItaly, Portugal and Ireland trust it. Denmark is the only country where more than half of the populationtend not to trust it, although in the UK and Sweden people who lack trust also outnumber those whotrust the European Commission. The proportion of “don’t know” responses ranges from 10% inDenmark to 38% in the UK.

58

51

44

5145

60

44 4346

43

3540

23 2328

25

63 62 6054 53 52 50 49 48 47 46 45

39 3833

24

I P IRL E B L F GR NL FIN A EU15 DK S D UK0

20

40

60

80

100%

% "Tend to trust" in Spring 1999 % "Tend to trust" in Autumn 1999

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 3.9c

Trust in the European Commission



In all Member States except Luxembourg and not to a statistically significant degree the UK, peopleare now more likely to trust the European Commission than they were in the spring 1999. Thispositive development is most certainly linked to the far-reaching changes that occurred in theCommission following the resignation of the Santer team in March 1999. The highest increases in theproportion of people who say they tend to trust the European Commission are noted in Ireland,Denmark (both +16), Sweden (+15), Portugal and Austria (both +11).


52

The significant drop in trust levels in Luxembourg (-8) may be related to the fact that the President ofthe Commission that was forced to resign, Jacques Santer, is a national of this country. It isimpossible to say whether the people in Luxembourg are voicing their disappointment with the SanterCommission or whether they are upset by the fact that a Commission headed by one of their nationalshad to resign.

Finally, we look at the median trust level for the 9 institutions and bodies in each of the MemberStates9. As the following table shows, the median is highest in Ireland and Luxembourg (both 50%)and lowest in the UK (18%).

Trust in the EU institutions and bodies

(Median score - % saying tend to trustfor the 9 institutions and bodies,

by country)

Country Median

Ireland 50

Luxembourg 50

Portugal 49

The Netherlands 48

Spain 47

Finland 47

Italy 44

Belgium 42

France 41

Austria 41

Denmark 39

EU15 38

Sweden 38

Greece 35

Germany 33

United Kingdom 18

9 Once again, readers are reminded that low levels of trust are mostly set off by high levels of “don’t know”responses, not by high levels of distrust.


53

3.5. Support for joint EU decision-making

The survey includes a question that asks whether decisions should be taken at the national or EUlevel. It lists 25 policy areas over which the Union has, to varying degrees, decision-makingcompetency. On average, 53% of people support joint EU decision-making in these areas: EUdecision-making is favoured over national decision-making in 17 of the 25 areas.

SUPPORT FOR JOINT EU DECISION-MAKINGBY COUNTRY

Country

Average level ofsupport for EU

decision-making(for 25 areas, in %)

Number of areas where EUdecision-making is more

popular than nationaldecision-making

(25 areas maximum)

Italy 66% 23

The Netherlands 62% 17

Belgium 61% 17

Luxembourg 56% 19

France 56% 17

Germany 55% 16

Spain 54% 17

EU15 53% 17

Ireland 47% 11

Austria 46% 14

Portugal 46% 12

Greece 43% 12

Finland 40% 9

Denmark 39% 8

Sweden 38% 7

UK 36% 8

Once again, support for EU decision-making is highest in Italy where joint EU decision-making isfavoured over national decision-making in 23 of the 25 policy areas. The only 2 areas where Italianswant their government to have the sole power are policing and urban crime prevention. In Belgiumand the Netherlands, more than 6 in 10 people on average also prefer joint EU decision-making.Support for EU decision-making is lowest in the UK, Sweden and Denmark where less than 4 in 10people favour joint EU over national decision-making. In these countries, the public attaches morevalue to national sovereignty and prefers a more restricted role for the EU in the decision-makingprocess.

This year, the question was divided into policy areas covered by the 3 pillars of the Maastricht Treatyand the new policy areas covered by the Amsterdam Treaty. We first look at people’s viewsconcerning the Maastricht Treaty policy areas.


54

15 policy areas - EU15

National or joint EU decision-making

70%

69%

67%

66%

62%

60%

60%

59%

52%

48%

48%

39%

34%

34%

34%

23%

22%

28%

29%

34%

35%

33%

37%

44%

46%

44%

53%

62%

62%

58%

EU National

Information about the EU

Scientific and technologicalresearch

Foreign policy

Protection of the environment

Support for regions in economicdifficulty

Fight against unemployment

Currency

Defence

Humanitarian aid

Agriculture and fishing policy

Basic rules for broadcasting and the press

Cultural policy

Education

Fight against poverty/socialexclusion

Percentage "don't know" not shownStandard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.10aSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Health and social welfare

As in the spring of 1999, people are most likely to be of the opinion that decisions concerninginformation about the EU, its policies and institutions and bodies should be taken jointly by theEuropean Union. The next four areas where support for joint EU decision-making is most widespreadare foreign policy, humanitarian aid, science and technological research and the fight against povertyand social exclusion. People are least likely to want EU decision-making for education, health andsocial policy and broadcasting rules for the media.

When it comes to the Amsterdam Treaty policy areas, we find that support for EU joint decision-making is most widespread for the fight against human trade and exploitation. Conversely people aremost likely to support national decision-making in the areas of policing and justice.

The results show that people follow the Union’s subsidiarity principle by supporting joint EU decision-making in areas that either transcend national borders or have a limited impact on their day-to-day lifebut want the national governments to decide in areas that concern them, their families or their countrymore directly. (Table 3.6)


55

National or joint decision-making after the Amsterdam Treaty(EU15)

74

67

67

53

51

49

44

39

38

33

21

29

29

42

43

46

51

57

58

63

The fight against organised crime

The fight against drugs

Accepting refugees

Rules for political asylum

Immigration policy

Juvenile crime prevention

Urban crime prevention

Justice

Police

% European Union % National


The fight against the trade in, andexploitation of, human beings

Percentage "don't know" not shownSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

3.6. Support for key issues

For several years, the Eurobarometer has measured public opinion towards a number of key issues ofthe European Union. Some of the issues are clear-cut policy matters, while others relate todemocratic processes which govern the way the European Union functions.

84%

73%

73%

73%

66%

64%

62%

60%

8%

11%

14%

8%

18%

17%

18%

32%

For Against

(UE15)

Support for key issues

Percentage "don't know" not shownStandard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.11Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Teach in schools howthe EU works

Common defence and securitypolicy

The Commission (President andCommissioners) should haveParliament's support or resign

Common Foreign Policy

The European Central Bank hasto be accountable for its decisionsto the European Parliament

EU should be responsible only formatters which national, regional andlocal governments can not deal with

There has to be a European CentralBank which is independent of theMember States

There has to be one single currency,the euro


56

In all 15 Member States, there is widespread agreement that children should be taught in school aboutthe way European Union institutions and bodies work, with support levels ranging from 72% in UK to92% in Sweden.

As one would expect, support for the policy issues is most evident in countries where support for theEU is high and least evident in countries that are more sceptical about the EU. On the other hand,support for the questions on the democratic processes is equally, if not more, evident in the moreEurosceptic countries. For instance, we find high levels of support in Finland, Sweden and Denmarkfor the notion that the European Central Bank should be accountable for its decisions to the EuropeanParliament, despite the fact that a significant proportion of people in these countries is against theeuro. It is not surprising to find high support for democratic processes in the Nordic countries wheremany people feel that the European Union has too much power and that there are insufficientmeasures to control this power. (Table 3.7)

The following table shows the average support level for the 8 key issues in each Member State10. Ascan be seen, support for key issues is highest in the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy and lowest in theUK, Sweden and Denmark. A comparison of the latest results with those obtained in spring 1999shows significant increases in support in Ireland, Austria (both +4), Italy, Greece and Sweden (all +3)and significant decreases in support in Luxembourg and the UK (both -4).

AVERAGE % SUPPORT FOR KEY ISSUES IN SPRING AND AUTUMN 1999BY COUNTRY

CountrySpring 1999

EB51

Autumn 1999

EB52

The Netherlands 80 80

Belgium 76 78

Italy 75 78

Luxembourg 80 76

Greece 72 75

France 73 73

Ireland 69 73

Germany 71 72

Spain 69 71

EU15 69 69

Austria 65 69

Finland 69 67

Portugal 65 66

Denmark 66 65

Sweden 62 65

United Kingdom 54 50

10 Readers should note that, in some countries (for instance, Portugal), low support levels are matched by a highlevel of 'don't know' responses and not by high opposition levels.


57

3.7. Support for the Union's priorities

The Eurobarometer also gauges the extent to which the public regards the current actions of theEuropean Union as priorities.

90%

89%

88%

87%

83%

80%

80%

70%

60%

51%

50%

28%

6%

6%

8%

8%

12%

12%

14%

20%

31%

33%

37%

59%

% Priority % Not a priority

(EU15)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 3.12Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

EU actions: priority or not?


Fighting unemployment

Fighting organised crime anddrug trafficking

Maintaining peace andsecurity in Europe

Protecting the environment

Guaranteeing the rights of theindividual and respect for theprinciples of democracy in Europe

Protecting consumers andguaranteeing the quality ofproducts

Getting closer to European citizens,for example by giving them moreinformation about the EU

Successfully implementing the singleEuropean currency, the euro

Reforming the institutions andbodies of the EU and the waythey work

Asserting the political and diplomaticimportance of the EU around the world

Welcoming new member countries

Fighting poverty and socialexclusion

There is almost complete consensus among EU citizens when it comes to the fight againstunemployment: the proportion of people who consider this action a priority ranging from 82% inDenmark to 96% in France. The large majority of Europeans also believes that maintaining peace andsecurity in Europe, fighting organised crime and drug trafficking and fighting poverty and socialexclusion should be priority actions for the European Union. The graph shows that EU citizens wantthe EU to improve or safeguard current standards but that they are less keen on issues that require orimply a change to the status quo. Hence, we find that the public is least likely to regard enlargementas a priority11.

11 See section 3.8 for a more detailed look at public support for enlargement.


58

One of the immediate priorities of the European Union is to reform its institutions and bodies inpreparation for enlargement12. In this context, an Intergovernmental Conference is scheduled to takeplace in the year 2000. The Eurobarometer has found that 51% of EU citizens regard the reform ofthe EU a priority. However, there are large differences in opinion from country to country, with peoplein Denmark most likely to consider reform a priority (74%) and people in Finland least likely to sharethis view (41%). In 3 Member States, people are now considerably more likely than they were inspring 1999 (when the Commission had just resigned) to consider reform a priority. These areLuxembourg (+6), Italy and Portugal (both +4). In the Netherlands (+2), Ireland (0), France, Finland(both –1), and Greece (-2), no significant changes are recorded. In the other countries, the public isnow less likely to view reform as a priority with the largest decreases (-5) noted in the UK and Austria.(Table 3.8)

3.8. Support for enlargement

In December 1997, the European Union launched the process to enlarge to the South and the Eastand new countries should be in a position to join the Union from the end of 2002 as soon as they havedemonstrated their ability to assume the obligations of membership. At the December 1999 EuropeanCouncil in Helsinki, the Heads of State and Government of the Member States announced that theaccession process comprises of 13 applicant countries in a single framework13. In this section, welook at how the public feels about the membership of the applicant countries. We also look at whatpeople think of Norway and Switzerland joining the European Union.

71

70

49

47

44

43

42

37

37

37

36

36

34

34

30

13

14

27

31

34

33

35

38

38

38

39

39

42

41

47

Norway

Switzerland

Malta

Hungary

Poland

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Romania

Slovenia

Turkey

% In favour % Against


Support for enlargement(EU15)

At this stage, public opinion on enlargement has not yet crystallised with many people still opting forthe “don’t know” response when asked about their support for countries to become part of theEuropean Union. Nonetheless, the data indicates that support for some countries is more widespreadthan it is for others. Of the 13 applicant countries, the EU public is most likely to support Malta’smembership (49%) with support ranging from 36% in France to 72% in Greece. Support for Hungaryranges from 36% in France to 65% in Sweden and Denmark; for Poland, it ranges from 23% in Austriato 70% in Denmark and, for Cyprus, it ranges from 32% in France and Germany to 88% in Greece. At30%, support for Turkey is least widespread and ranges from 20% in Germany to 44% in Ireland. Atthe EU level, opposition levels range from 27% for Malta to 47% for Turkey.

12 For more details please see http://www.europa.eu.int/council/off/conclu/dec99/dec99_en.htm#igc.13 The 13 applicant countries are Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,

Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. More information about enlargement can be found at:http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index.htm.


59

As last spring, people are more likely to support the membership of Norway (71%) and Switzerland(70%) – two Western European nations that at the moment are not planning to join the Union - thanthey are to support the membership of the applicant countries. Support for Norway ranges from 55%in Portugal to 90% in the Netherlands; for Switzerland, it ranges from 60% in Portugal and the UK to84% in the Netherlands. (Table 3.9)

The next table shows the average support level for enlargement for spring 1999 and autumn 1999.

ENLARGEMENT

AVERAGE % SUPPORT FOR THE 15 NEW COUNTRIESIN SPRING AND AUTUMN 1999 BY COUNTRY

CountrySpring 99

EB51

Autumn 99

EB52

Sweden 56 62

Denmark 62 60

Greece 58 57


Spain 51 48

Finland 51 49

Italy 45 49

Ireland 45 47

EU15 42 43

Belgium 39 42

Luxembourg 45 41


Portugal 38 40

Germany 38 38

Austria 29 35

France 33 34

On average, people in Sweden (62%) are now most likely to favour enlargement (+6), while people inFrance (34%) are the least supportive.

During the 1993 Copenhagen European Council, the Heads of State and Government agreed on anumber of criteria which countries wishing to join the European Union had to meet14. Eurobarometerresults show that there is widespread public support for these criteria, with a large majority of EUcitizens saying that each of them is important.

14 On 13 October 1999, the European Commission published a report detailing the applicant countries' progressin meeting these criteria. It can be found on the Internet:http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_10_99/intro/index.htm.


60

95

93

91

83

81

79

75

70

2

3

5

8

10

13

17

18

The country has to respect human rights and the pr

It has to fight organised crime and drug trafficki

It has to protect the environment

It has to be able to pay its share of the EU budge

It has to accept whatever has already been decided

Its joining should not be costly for existing memb

Its level of economic development should be close

It has to be prepared to put the interest of the E

% Important % Not important


Importance of enlargement criteria(EU15)

The country has to respect Human Rights and theprinciples of democracy

It has to fight organised crime and drug trafficking

It has to accept whatever has already beendecided and put in place throughout the processof building Europe

It has to be able to pay its share of the EU budget

Its joining should not be costly for existing membercountries

It has to protect the environment

Its level of economic development should be closeto that of other Member States

It has to be prepared to put the interest of the EUabove its own

More than 9 in 10 people feel that applicant countries should a) respect Human Rights and theprinciples of democracy, b) fight organised crime and drug trafficking and c) protect the environment ifthey wish to join the European Union. The large majority also feel that applicant countries have toaccept whatever has already been decided and put in place throughout the process of buildingEurope. The public's concern about the financial implications of enlargement is evident from thewidespread importance placed on the criterion that applicant countries have to be able to pay theirshare of the EU budget and that their joining should not be costly for existing member countries.People are somewhat less concerned about the economic development of the applicant countries. At70%, people are least likely to feel that the requirement for countries to put the interests of the EUabove their own is an important criterion. However, public opinion on this criterion varies considerablyfrom country to country: 79% of people in Germany believe it is important, compared to only 36% ofpeople in Denmark.

The next table shows that the average level of support for the 8 criteria ranges from 75% in Denmarkto 88% in France. As can be seen, people in Austria are, on average, now significantly more likely toregard the criteria as important (+5), while people in Spain (-6) and Luxembourg (-5) are nowsignificantly less likely to believe the criteria are important. (See also table 3.10)


61

AVERAGE % OF PUBLIC THAT REGARDS THE ENLARGEMENTCRITERIA AS IMPORTANT IN SPRING AND AUTUMN 1999

BY COUNTRY

CountrySpring 99

EB51

Autumn 99

EB52

France 90 88

Germany 87 87

Austria 82 87

Belgium 89 86

Greece 85 86


Italy 85 83

Ireland 84 84

EU15 85 83

Sweden 80 81

Finland 80 81

Luxembourg 85 80

Portugal 81 79


Spain 84 78

Denmark 77 75

3.9. The expected and desired role of the EU in five years’ time

So far, we have looked at the current state of public opinion about the European Union. In the finalsection of this chapter, we look towards the future.

Fifty-one percent of Europeans believe that, in five years’ time, the European Union will play a moreimportant role in their daily life, 30% believe it will play the same role and only 7% believe it will play aless important role.

The country by country analyses show that people in Portugal, Greece (both 64%) and Italy (63%) aremost likely to think that the EU will play a more important role in their daily life. In 6 further countries,more than half of the people also share this view. Although public opinion is somewhat more dividedin the other countries, the feeling that the EU will play a more important role is nonetheless theprevalent view. The UK is the only country where there are more people who feel the EU will play thesame role than there are people who feel it will play a more important role. The view that the EU willplay a less important role is low throughout the Member States and ranges from 3% in Ireland andSpain to 14% in Germany.


62

The perceived role of the EU in people's daily life in 5 years'time

64 64 6361 60 59 58

5653

5148 47 46 45 44

34

20 1922

29 2832

26 27

38

30

37

32 3329

31

36

4

9

4 47 6

3 3 47

11 108

1014

8

P GR I NL S DK IRL E F EU15 FIN B L A D UK0

20

40

60

80

100%

% More important % Same role % Less important

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 3.15a Percentage "don't know" not shownSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

In a number of countries, people are now significantly more likely to think that the European Union willplay a more important role than they were in the autumn of 1998 (when the question was previouslyasked). These countries are Sweden (+11), Portugal (+10), Denmark (+9), Spain, Belgium (both +7),Finland (+5), the Netherlands and Ireland (both +4). Greece is the only Member State where peopleare now significantly more likely (+6) to think that the European Union will play a less important role inthe 21st century. (Table 3.11a)

While socio-demographic factors certainly play a role in determining how people think about the role ofthe EU in the future, the proportion of people who believe that its role will be less important is alwaysbelow 10%, regardless of their sex, age, economic activity or years of schooling. Only those who viewmembership to the EU as a bad thing are somewhat more inclined (17%) to feel that, in 5 years’ time,the EU will play a less important role in their daily life. (Table 3.11b)

Looking next at the role people would like the European Union to play in their daily life in 5 years’ time,the data show that 45% of Europeans desire a more important role, 27% desire the same role, whileonly 14% desire a less important role.

The country analyses reveal that people in Italy (73%) and Portugal (70%) are most likely to want it toplay a more important role in their daily life. Greece (63%) and Spain (51%) are the only other 2countries where more than half of the population want the European Union to play a more importantrole in their daily life. In Finland (43%), the Netherlands (39%), Denmark (36%) and the UK (30%), themost frequently expressed desire is for the EU to continue to play the same role. The proportion ofpeople wanting a less important role for the EU is, as expected, highest in Denmark (30%), Sweden(26%) and the UK (23%). However, in none of these countries is this the most widely expressed view– and, in Sweden the balance clearly tips in favour of people who would like the EU to play a moreimportant role (41%).

Compared to autumn 1998, people in Belgium (+10) and Portugal (+8) are now significantly morelikely to want the European Union to play a more important role. In France (+6), the proportion ofpeople who desire the EU to play the same role has increased significantly. Greece (+7) is the onlycountry where people are now significantly more likely to desire a less important role for the EU in thenear future. (Table 3.12a)


63

The desired role of the EU in people's daily life in 5 years'time

7370

63

5148

46 4541 41 40

38 3835

3230

24

12 1315

28 27

34

27

35

25

33

39

2831

43

36

30

4 4

13

710 11

1410

26

7

14 15

20 19

30

23

I P GR E B F EU15 L S IRL NL A D FIN DK UK0

20

40

60

80

100%

% More important % Same role % Less important


It should come as no surprise that people who support their country's EU membership (65%) aresignificantly more likely to desire a more important role for the EU at the beginning of the next centurythan people who regard it as a bad thing (17%). 46% of the latter group would like the EU to play aless important role in 5 years’ time. Again, we find relatively little variation among the various socio-demographic groups when it comes to wanting a less important role for the EU. This view is held byless than 20% of the population, regardless of sex, age, economic activity or years of schooling.(Table 3.12b)


64

4. The single currency, the euro

In this chapter, we look at several facets of public opinion about the single currency. We first of allreport on public support for the euro and how this has evolved over time. Next, we look at the extentto which people feel informed about the euro and from whom they say they have received informationabout it. We also look at public interest in the euro. The chapter ends with an analysis of people’sknowledge levels.

4.1. Support for the single currency

In autumn 1999, 6 in 10 EU citizens are of the opinion that there has to be one single currency, theeuro, which replaces the national currencies of the Member States of the European Union. Theproportion of people who lack an opinion has fallen from 11% to 8%, with the remaining 32% of EUcitizens against the single currency. In the eleven countries that introduced the euro on 1 January1999 (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,Portugal and Spain), support stands at 68%1. The following graph shows how public support for theeuro has evolved since the Eurobarometer first measured it in 1993.

1993-1999

�

�

� � �

� ��

�

��

�

��

B

B

BB B B B

B BB

B

BB

B

�

�

��

� �

�

�

�

��

3993

4093

4194

4294

4395

44.195

44.296

4696

4797

4897

4998

5098

5199

5299

0

20

40

60

80ÿ

EBYear

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 4.1Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Trend

38 38 36 37 36 35 37 37 40 37

28

52 51 53 52 52 5351 51

4751

60

6061 60 6157 56

5456

5255

6670

64

25

61

28

68

60

32

68


* EURO9 until 1994; EURO11 since 1995** EU12 until 1994; EU15 since 1995

Support for the single currency

% For - euro-zone average *

% For - EU average **

% Against - EU average **

As can be seen, public support rose sharply in the period just prior to the 1 January 1999 introductionof the euro, reaching a high of 64% in autumn 1998. Now that the euro has been in operation forsome time, the initial euphoria has worn off and with the euro not performing as well as expectedagainst other foreign currencies, it is not surprising to find slightly lower support levels. However,people are still much more likely to be in favour of the euro than they were when it was first decided tohave a single currency, back in 1993.

1 Throughout the remainder of this report, we will refer to this group as the "EURO 11" countries. The 4 countriesoutside the euro-zone are Denmark, Greece, Sweden and the United Kingdom. They will be referred to as the"pre-in" countries. At 34%, public support for the euro is significantly lower in the “pre-in” countries.


65

85%

79%

78%

77%

75%

72%

70%

68%

65%

64%

60%

58%

55%

47%

43%

42%

34%

25%

11%

15%

13%

18%

22%

18%

20%

26%

22%

32%

32%

30%

36%

49%

48%

50%

53%

59%

IL

IRLB

NLE

GREURO11

PF

EU15

AD

FINS

DKPRE-INS

UK

For Against

NET RESULTS

74

64

65

59

53

54

50

42

32

28

19

-5

-8

-19

-34

28

43

-2



The euro: for or against?

Looking next at the "pre-in" countries, the results indicate that people in Greece (70%) continue to bemore likely to support the euro than people in the UK, Denmark and Sweden. In Sweden andDenmark, around 4 in 10 people support the euro and 5 in 10 people are against it. In the UK,supporters of the euro (25%) are greatly outnumbered by opponents (59%).

Analysis of shifts in support levels since spring 1999 in the “EURO 11” countries shows that theproportion of people in favour of the euro increased significantly in Ireland (+7), Portugal (+6), Austria(+5) and the Netherlands (+4). In Italy and Belgium, no significant changes were noted. Oppositionlevels increased significantly in Finland (+12), Luxembourg, France (both +6), Germany and Spain(both +3).

Looking at the "pre-in" countries, the results indicate that the proportion of people in favour of the euroincreased significantly in Greece (+5) and Sweden (+4), while the proportion of people who areagainst the euro rose significantly in the UK (+4). No significant changes in public opinion wererecorded in Denmark.(Table 4.1a)


66

8584

7985

7871

7776

7571

7270

7065

6868

6559

6468

6061

5853

5557

4758

4339

4244

3435

2528

119

159

1312

1817

2223

1815

2021

2622

2223

3226

3228

3030

3633

4937

4847

5048

5349

5955

I

L

IRL

B

NL

E

GR

EURO11

P

F

EU15

A

D

FIN

S

DK

PRE-INS

UK

FOR AGAINST88


Source: Eurobarometer 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999Eurobarometer 51.0 - Fieldwork March - Apr 1999


% For in Autum 1999

% For in Spring 1999

% Against in Autumn 1999

% Against in Spring 1999



67

65

65

60

61

56

57

29

26

32

28

34

30

Men

EU15

Women

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 4.2c

Source: Eurobarometer 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999Eurobarometer 51.0 - Fieldwork Mar - Apr 1999


The euro: for or against?by gender - EU15

% For in Autumn 1999




67

64

62

63

62

63

60

61

54

56

25

24

31

27

31

28

32

28

36

31

Aged 15 - 24

Aged 25 - 39

Aged 40 - 54

EU15

Aged 55 +

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 4.2d Percentage "don't know" not shown


The euro: for or against?by age - EU15






68

74

72

72

66

60

61

57

60

52

54

21%

20%

21%

24%

32%

28%

35%

30%

37%

32%

20 + years old

Still studying

EU15

16 - 19 years old

Less than 15 years old

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 4.2e Percentage "don't know" not shown


The euro: for or against?by age of finishing education - EU15





7070

6870

6767

6061

5858

5657

5562

5253

2322

2721

2625

3228

3128

3632

3428

3934

Managers

Self - employed

Other white collar

EU15

House persons

Manual workers

Unemployed

Retired

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 4.2f Percentage "don't know" not shown







by occupation of respondent - EU15


69

Analysis by standard demographic variables shows that men (65%) continue to be more likely tosupport the euro than women (56%) but that the gap in opposition levels is less marked (men: 29%;women: 34%). Among the various age groups, people aged 15 to 24 are now more likely to supportthe euro than they were in spring 1999 (67% vs. 64%). In the other age groups, opposition levelshave increased significantly - with the largest increase noted for people aged 55 and over (+5). Asalways, education is a powerful predictor of how people feel about the euro. 74% of those who stayedin full-time education until age 20 or older support it, compared to 52% of people who left school bythe age of 15 or younger. Analysis of the respondent occupation scale show that managers are mostsupportive (70%), while retired people (who are in most instances aged 55 or over) tend to be leastsupportive (52%).

The gap between those who regard their country's membership as a good thing (81%) and those whoregard their country's membership as a bad thing (21%) remains very wide. (Table 4.1b)

As the following table shows, support for the single currency also depends on how interested and onhow well informed people feel about the euro.

Support for the single currency

% in favourof the euro

% againstthe euro

% don'tknow

Feels very or fairlyinterested in the euro

75% 20% 5%

Feels very well / wellinformed about the euro

73% 23% 5%

EU15 Average 60% 32% 8%

Feels not very / not at allwell informed about the euro

51% 38% 11%

Feels not very or not at allinterested in the euro

41% 47% 12%

4.2. Information about the single currency

People who feel very or fairly well informed about the single currency (42%) are outnumbered bypeople who feel not very or not at all well informed (56%). In comparison with spring 1999, the levelsof feeling informed tend now to be slightly lower. The Netherlands and Germany are the onlycountries where a slight (non-significant) increase has been recorded.

The country analyses show that levels of feeling informed continue to be higher in the "EURO 11"countries than in the "pre-in" countries. Among the "EURO 11" countries, people in the Netherlands(74%) are most likely to feel well informed, followed by people in Luxembourg (69%), Finland (64%)and France (60%). In Portugal, people continue to be least likely to feel well informed: it is the only"EURO 11" country where less than 3 in 10 people feel well informed (23%).

Among the "pre-in" countries, the level of feeling informed continue to be highest in Denmark (40%),although the Danes are now significantly less likely to feel well informed than they were in spring 1999(-11). Less than a quarter of the population in Sweden, the UK and Greece feel well informed. (Table4.2a).


70

7176

70

63 6359

52 5145

51

3936 38

29 28 27 2620

7469

6460 58

55 5448

42 4035 35 34

24 23 23 2118

NL L FIN F B A D EURO11

EU15 DK E IRL I S P PRE-INS

UK GR0

20

40

60

80

100ÿ

% % Very well + well informed in Spring 1999 % Very well + well informed in Autumn 1999

Standard Eurobarometer 52- Fig. 4.3

Source: Eurobarometer 51.0 - Fieldwork Mar - Apr 1999Eurobarometer 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Feeling informed about the single currency

As expected, there is a strong relationship between feeling informed about the euro and feelinginformed about the European Union in general. 80% of people who feel they know a great deal aboutthe European Union feel well informed about the euro, compared to only 21% of people who feel theyknow very little about the European Union. Levels of feeling informed also depend on whether people(say they) have already received information about the euro. 53% of respondents who say they havealready received information about the euro feel well informed about it, compared to only 14% of thosewho say they have not received any information about the euro. There is also a strong relationshipbetween feeling informed and feeling interested. As the following table shows, 57% of people whofeel interested in the euro feel very or fairly well informed, as opposed to only 24% of people who donot feel interested2.

Feeling informed about the euro by feeling interested in it

Feels very orfairly interested

Feels not very ornot at all

interestedEU 15 average

% Very well + wellinformed

57 24 42

% Not very well +not at all informed

42 74 56

% Don't know 0 2 1

% Total 99 100 99

2 See table 4.2b for analyses by gender, age, economic activity and terminal education age.


71

3 in 4 people living in the 15 Member States say they have received information about the euro.

98 97 95

85

91 89 8782

88

79 78 7672

80

72 70

44

30

97 97

9187 86 85 84

80 7974 74

70 70 6864 62

39

26

L FIN F D B I EURO11

A E NL EU15 S IRL GR DK P PRE-INS

UK0

20

40

60

80

100

% Yes in Spring 1999 % Yes in Autumn 1999

Standard Eurobarometer 52- Fig. 4.4a

ÿ

Source: Eurobarometer 51.0 - Fieldwork Mar - Apr 1999Eurobarometer 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Have people received any information about thesingle currency?

Among the "EURO 11" countries, the proportion of people who say that they have received informationabout the euro is highest in Luxembourg, Finland (both 97%) and France (91%). In Germany,Belgium, Italy and Austria, at least 8 in 10 people say they have received information. People inPortugal (62%) and Ireland (70%) are least likely to have received information about the singlecurrency. Apart from Germany, the proportion of people that claims to have received informationabout the euro has fallen in all “EURO 11” countries. The most significant drops were recorded inSpain (-9) and Portugal (-8).

Among the "pre-in" countries, people in Sweden are most likely to say that they have receivedinformation (70%), followed by people in Greece (68%) and Denmark (64%). People in the UKcontinue to be least likely to say they have received information (26%). The number of people sayingthey have received information has fallen in all 4 “pre-in” countries, with drops ranging from 4percentage points in the UK to 12 percentage points in Greece.

As the following graph shows, people are most likely to say that they have received information aboutthe euro from television (56%). 4 in 10 respondents say they have received information through thewritten press, which is now more frequently listed than financial institutions (36%). Apart from the radio(25%), all other sources included in the questionnaire are listed by less than 2 in 10 respondents3.

3 The combined total of the responses is greater than the percentage of people who have received informationbecause respondents could list any of the sources presented to them from whom they had receivedinformation. For spring 1999 results, see table 4.6 in Eurobarometer Report No. 51.


72

56%

40%

36%

25%

14%

11%

9%

8%

7%

6%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

Television

Newspapers, magazines

Banks, saving banks

Radio

Family, friends

Letter / information left in mail box

Workplace

Shop, supermarket

National government

School, university

Local government

Consumer organisation

Trade union, professional organisation

Internet, Teletext, Minitel

Regional government

Other


From whom have people received informationabout the single currency?

(EU15)*

* Asked of those who have received information

The next table shows that there is relatively little variation in the pecking order among the MemberStates. Television , newspapers and magazines and financial institutions are the three mostfrequently mentioned sources in all the “EURO 11” countries. As anticipated, financial institutions donot make the top three in the “pre-in” countries. In Denmark, Spain, Sweden and the UK, radiocomes in third place, while “family & friends” comes in third place in Greece. There is, however,great variation in the number of people that say they have received information from each of thesources. (See also table 4.3)


73

TOP THREE MOST MENTIONED SOURCES FROM WHICH PEOPLEHAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT THE EURO

(IN %, BY MEMBER STATE)

Belgium Luxembourg

Television 65 Television 72

Financial institutions 51 Financial institutions 62

Newspapers, magazines 46 Newspapers, magazines 59



Newspapers, magazines 36 Financial institutions 56

Radio 30 Newspapers, magazines 52

Germany Austria


Newspapers, magazines 57 Financial institutions 50

Financial institutions 51 Newspapers, magazines 44

Greece Portugal



Family & friends 19 Financial institutions 15

Spain Finland



Radio 28 Financial institutions 54

France Sweden

Financial institutions 67 Television 61

Television 66 Newspapers, magazines 51

Newspapers, magazines 41 Radio 33


Financial institutions 32 Television 17

Television 30 Newspapers, magazines 12

Newspapers, magazines 27 Radio 6

Italy

Television 65

Newspapers, magazines 42

Financial institutions 30

4.3. Interest in the single currency

A new Eurobarometer question enables us to look at the extent to which the public is interested in thesingle currency. In the EU15 as a whole 15% of the public regards the euro as a topic they are veryinterested in, 41% are fairly interested, 29% are not very interested and 13% are not at all interested.As the following graph indicates, interest levels vary considerably from country to country.


74

74 7369 69 68

62 61 59 58 58 56 5652 51 49 47 46 45

25 2430 31 31

3539 38

41 42 42 4247 48 48

53 53 52

L P I NL GR A B IRL EURO11

DK EU15 D E FIN PRE-INS

S F UK0

20

40

60

80

100ÿ

% Very interested + fairly interested % Not very interested + not at all interested

Interest in the single currency

Standard Eurobarometer 52- Fig. 4.5 Percentage "don't know" not shown


Among the “EURO11” public, people in Luxembourg (74%) and Portugal (73%) are most likely to bevery or fairly interested in the euro, with more than two-thirds of the population in the Netherlands andItaly (both 69%) sharing this view. In Austria (62%), Belgium (60%) and Ireland (59%), the proportionof interested people outnumbers those that are not very or not at all interested by at least 20percentage points. With the exception of France, more than half of the public in the remaining“EURO11” countries feel interested in the single currency although the proportion of people not very ornot at all interested is above 40%. France is the only “EURO11” country where people who say theyare not very or not at all interested in the single currency (53%) outnumber those who feel interested(46%).

Among the “pre-in” countries, interest levels are most widespread in Greece (68%). Nearly 6 in 10people in Denmark feel interested. In Sweden and the UK, the proportion of people not feelinginterested is slightly higher than the proportion of people interested in the single currency. (Table4.4a)

Demographic analyses show that men are significantly more likely than women to be interested in thesingle currency (61% vs. 50%). Those aged 55 and over are significantly less likely to be interested(49%) than their younger counterparts. 68% of people who stayed in full-time education until the ageof 20 or older and 64% of people who are still studying are interested, compared to only 47% ofpeople who left school by the age of 15 or younger. Among the various occupational groups, we findthat managers are most likely to show interest in the euro (72%). People looking after the home(48%), unemployed people (49%) and retired people (50%) are least likely to share this view.

Supporters of the European Union are considerably more likely to show interest in the single currency(72%) than people who regard their country’s membership as a bad thing (34%). The following tableshows that people who are in favour of the euro are twice as likely as people who are against it to beinterested.


75

Feeling interested in the euro by support levels

In favour of theeuro Against the euro EU 15 average

% Very + fairlyinterested

70 35 56

% Not very + notat all interested

29 63 42

% Don't know 1 2 2

% Total 100 100 100

Earlier in the chapter, we showed a cross-tabulation for levels of feeling informed about the euro bylevels of interest in it. The following table shows the cross-tabulation for feeling interested in the euroby feeling informed about it. As can be seen, 75% of people feel well informed are interested in theeuro, compared to only 42% of people who do not feel well informed.

Feeling interested in the euro by feeling informed about it

Feels very wellor well informed

Feels not verywell or not at all

well informedEU 15 average

% Very + fairlyinterested

75 42 56

% Not very + notat all interested 24 56 42

% Don't know 1 2 2

% Total 100 100 100

There are also large differences in the extent to which people are interested in the single currency,depending on their self-perceived knowledge level. Among those who feel they know a lot about theEuropean Union (scores 8-10 on the knowledge scale), 80% are interested in the single currency yetonly 38% of people who feel they know very little about the EU (scores 1-3 on the knowledge scale)say they are interested. (Table 4.4b)

4.4. Knowledge about the single currency

In the final section of this chapter, we look at a number of findings that provide insight into the public’sknowledge about the single currency. Respondents were first of all asked whether the value of theeuro has been irrevocably fixed against their national currency. In the “EURO 11” countries, thecorrect answer is “yes”, whereas the currencies of the 4 “pre-in” countries have not been fixed againstthe euro so the correct answer here is “no”.


76

85

78 7875 75

7268 67 67

61 5956

50

30

2217 15

128 7 9

16 1611 12 10 12

9 11

18

10

25

46

53

40 40

L A B F NL I EURO11

FIN D IRL P EU15 E GR DK S PRE-INS

UK0

20

40

60

80

100ÿ

% Yes % No

Has the value of the euro been irrevocably fixed againstthe participating national currency?

Standard Eurobarometer 52- Fig. 4.6 Percentage "don't know" not shownSource: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Among the “EURO 11” countries, public knowledge about this facet of the euro is most widespread inLuxembourg, where 85% of the people know that the value of the euro has been irrevocably fixedagainst the Luxembourg Franc. Knowledge levels are also above average in Austria, Belgium (both78%), France, the Netherlands (both 75%) and Italy (72%). People in Spain are least likely to knowthat the euro has been irrevocably fixed against the participating national currencies.

Among the “pre-in” countries, we find the highest proportion of correct replies in Sweden (53%) andthe lowest proportion of correct replies in Greece (25%). The proportion of “don’t know” responses ishigh and ranges from 31% in Sweden to 48% in the UK. (Table 4.5)

Respondents living in the “EURO 11” countries were also asked about the value of the euro in theirnational currency. As the following graph shows, knowledge levels vary greatly from country tocountry. Generally, however, the results show that very few people were able to give a correct answerto this question.

58

44

29

1812 12 12 10 9 9

3 1

NL L B I A EURO11

P FIN F E D IRL0

20

40

60

80

100ÿ

% Correct answer

People's knowledge of the value of the euroin their national currency

(Spontaneous answer)

Standard Eurobarometer 52- Fig. 4.7Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999


77

At 58%, people in the Netherlands are most likely to know the correct value of the euro in Dutchguilders. In Luxembourg, 44% of respondents were able to give a correct answer, followed by 29% ofrespondents in Belgium and 18% of respondents in Italy. Only 1% of Irish respondents gave thecorrect answer. (Table 4.6a) – see earlier note on Spontaneous

The demographic analyses reveal that employees (22%), managers and people who stayed in full-time education until the age of 20 or older (both 18%) are most likely to know the value of the euro intheir national currency. Knowledge is least apparent among the oldest age group, including retiredpeople (9%) and among women (10%). The self-perceived knowledge scale shows that 17% ofrespondents who feel they know a great deal about the European Union gave the correct value of theeuro, compared to only 8% of respondents who feel they know very little about the EU. (Table 4.6b)

In all countries, the Eurobarometer asked respondents what will happen by July 2002 at the latest inthe countries participating in the euro. As the following graph shows, the proportion of respondentsthat know that there will only be the euro at this stage is significantly higher in the “EURO 11”countries (67%) than it is in the “pre-in” countries (29%).

8177 77 76

68 6761 59 58 56 55 54 54

44

31 2926 26

F L B NL D EURO11

I EU15 FIN P E IRL A GR DK PRE-INS

UK S0

20

40

60

80

100ÿ

There will be only the euro

The euro: knowledge of what will happen in July 2002

Standard Eurobarometer 52- Fig. 4.8Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

Among the “EURO 11” countries, public knowledge of what will happen by July 2002 is greatest inFrance (81%), followed by Luxembourg, Belgium (both 77%) and the Netherlands (76%). At 54%,people in Austria and Ireland are least likely to be aware of the fact that by July 2002, their respectivenational currency will cease to exist and that the euro will be the only legal tender.

Among the “pre-in” countries, people in Greece (44%) are most likely to know that, in the countriesparticipating in the euro, the national currencies will no longer be in circulation by July 2002. InDenmark 31% of people are aware of this fact, while around a quarter of the population in Swedenand the UK knows that, in July 2002, there will only be the euro in the participating Member States.(Table 4.9a)

The socio-demographic analyses show that managers (69%), employees and people who stayed infull-time education until the age of 20 or older (both 68%) are most likely to know that there will only bethe euro by July 2002. Knowledge about this facet of the euro is least widespread among people wholeft full-time education by the age of 15 or younger (50%) and people who look after the home (51%).


78

As one would expect, self-perceived knowledge about the EU is a good indicator of people’sknowledge about what will happen by July 2002. 7 in 10 respondents who feel they know a lot aboutthe EU know that there will only be the euro, compared to less than half of respondents who feel theyknow very little about the European Union. (Table 4.9b)

The following table shows that people who feel well informed about the euro are significantly morelikely to know what will happen by July 2002 than people who do not feel well informed.

What will happen with the euro by July 2002?

Feels very wellor well informedabout the euro

Feels not verywell or not at all

well informedabout the euro

EU 15 average

% There will onlybe the euro

73 49 59

% There will beboth the nationalcurrencies and

the euro

20 22 21

% Don't know 7 29 20

% Total 100 100 100


79

5. The European Parliament

In this chapter, we look at the perceived importance played by the European Parliament and the rolethe public would like it to play. Following the recent elections to the European Parliament, we alsoexamine reasons why people voted or stayed away from the election booth. The chapter begins bylooking at awareness levels for this European institution.

5.1. Awareness of the European Parliament through the media

Since 1977, the Eurobarometer has measured the extent to which the public has recently seen orheard anything about the European Parliament in the papers, on the radio or on television. The latestmeasurement, which was taken four months after the June 1999 European Parliament elections,shows that 53% of EU citizens have received information about the European Parliament throughthese three media. This is lower than in the spring of 1999 (60%), when the European Parliament hadreceived widespread media attention because of the forthcoming elections. As the following graphshows, awareness levels are always highest just prior to European Parliament elections.

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

��

�

EBYEAR

877

1078

1279

1480**

* 1681**

* 1882

2083

2284

2485

2686

2887

3088

3289

3490

3691

3892

4093

4294

4495

* 4797

4998

5199

5299

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig 5.1Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Trend

4950

65

54

37

46

75

67

61

58

49

43

45

4446

53

70

55

52

49

44 44

52

55

45

57

52 52

63

56

54

EC10 EC12 EC12+ EU15

43

44

66

43

EC9

60

53

* Question not asked** Combined split ballot total shown for 1980 and 1981

Awareness of the European Parliament through the media(1977-1999)

EC / EU AVERAGE

This time, the drop in awareness levels from the pre to the post election measurement is not as drasticas it has been in previous election years. In the period leading up to this year’s autumn measurement,the European Parliament received more media coverage than it normally does after an election.Following the resignation of the Santer Commission in March and the Amsterdam Treaty coming intoforce in May, the Parliament interviewed the new Commissioners proposed by President Prodiindividually in early September before giving its approval of the new Commission on 15 September1999.

People in Luxembourg (77%) are most likely to have recently seen or heard something about theEuropean Parliament through the media, followed by people in Finland (70%) and Italy (68%). In theUK (38%), Ireland (43%), the Netherlands (47%) and Spain (48%) less than half of the populationclaim to have recently seen or heard anything about the European Parliament in the papers, on theradio or on television.


80

8378

68 68 68 66 66

73

82

60 60 6156

68

54

42

77

70 68

61 61 61 61 59

53 53 5350 48 47

4338

L FIN I A P GR S B DK EU15 D F E NL IRL UK0

20

40

60

80

100%

% Yes in Spring 1999 % Yes in Autumn 1999



Awareness of the European Parliament through the media

As the graph above shows, in all Member States except Italy, lower awareness levels are found at thepost election measurement than in the pre election measurement. The drop in awareness levelsranges from 4 percentage points in the UK to 29 percentage points in Denmark. At 68%, awarenesslevels did not change in Italy. (Table 5.1a)

Managers (65%), people who stayed in full-time education until the age of 20 or older and self-employed people (both 62%) are the most likely to have recently seen or heard something about theEuropean Parliament through the media. Awareness levels are lowest among people who look afterthe home and people who left full-time education by the age of 15 or younger (both 45%). (Table5.1b)

As would be expected, awareness levels are significantly higher among people who voted in the 1999European Parliament elections than they are among those who abstained (62% vs. 42%). A 20-percentage point gap is also found between people who want the European Parliament to play a moreimportant role in the life of the European Union and those who want it to play a less important role(68% and 48%). As the following table shows, a gap of 46 percentage points is found between peoplewho feel they know a lot about the European Union (scores 8-10 on the self-perceived knowledgescale) and people who feel they know very little (scores 1-3 on the scale).

Awareness of the European Parliament through the media by self-perceived knowledge levels

Have yourecently heard or

read anythingabout the EP?

Highknowledge level

Averageknowledge level

Lowknowledge level

% Yes 82 62 36

% No 16 31 55

% Don't know 2 7 9

% Total 100 100 100


81

5.2. The European Parliament's perceived and desired importance

Over the years, the powers of the European Parliament have increased significantly. When theAssembly was elected directly by the people for the first time in 1979, it mainly played a consultativerole in the decision-making process. The 1993 Maastricht Treaty gave Parliament the co-decisionright, together with the Council of Ministers, in a number of areas. With the Amsterdam Treaty cominginto force on 1 May 1999, the European Parliament now has co-decision-making powers in re act ofmost of the Union's policies.

As in the spring of 1999, 63% of EU citizens believe the Parliament plays an important role in the lifeof the European Union1. As the following graph shows, people in Luxembourg are most likely toconsider Parliament's current role in the life of the European Union as important (83%), followed bypeople in Portugal (78%) and Ireland (76%). At 50%, people in the UK are least likely to say thatParliament plays an important role in the life of the European Union but are most likely to lack anopinion (33%) on this issue.

80

69 7168

73

6568

6368 67 67

62 6360 61

54

8378 76 74 74 73

70 68 67 65 64 64 6360

5350

L P IRL GR FIN S I A B F DK E EU15 D NL UK0

20

40

60

80

100%

% Very important + important in Spring 1999 % Very important + important in Autumn 1999


Source: Survey no. 51.0 - Fieldwork Mar - Apr 1999Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwiork Oct - Nov 1999

Current importance of the European Parliament

In comparison with spring 1999, the proportion of people who regard Parliament's role as importanthas increased significantly in Portugal (+9), Sweden (+8), Greece (+5), Ireland, Austria (both +5) andLuxembourg (+3). It fell in the Netherlands (-8), the UK (–4), France (-2) and Denmark (–3). Nosignificant changes were recorded in any of the other Member States. (Table 5.2)

Some 43% of EU citizens want the European Parliament to play a more important role while 24% arehappy with its role and only 12% desire a less important role for the European Parliament.

People in Italy and Portugal (both 62%) are most likely to want a more important role for the EuropeanParliament, followed by people in Greece (57%). At 24%, people in the UK are least likely to sharethis view and with Denmark most likely to desire a less important role for the Parliament2. In all othercountries, fewer than 2 in 10 people want the European Parliament to play a less important role in thelife of the European Union.

1 In chapter 3, we already noted that EU citizens are most likely to be of the opinion that, among a list of 9 EUinstitutions and bodies, the European Parliament plays an important role in the life of the European Union. Wealso noted that it is the institution the public is most likely to trust.

2 The proportion of "don't know" responses is highest in the UK (32%) and lowest in Denmark (10%).


82

6262

575050

43

4242414039393837

3524

1717

222324

24

2626

392832

232730

2921

457

128

12

315

71510

1712

237

23

IP

GRNL

B

EU15

EFIN

LSFDA

DKIRLUK

% More important % The same % Less important



Desired importance of the European Parliament

Compared to spring 1999, people in Austria, Portugal and Sweden are now significantly more likely todesire a more important role for the Parliament (all +6). Other countries where significant increasesare recorded are Luxembourg, Belgium (both +5), Italy and Germany (both +4). The UK (+6) andDenmark (+4) are the only two countries where people are now more likely to desire a less importantrole for the European Parliament. (Table 5.3)

5.3. Participation in European Parliament elections

From June 10 to 13, 1999, the fifth direct elections to the European Parliament were held in the 15Member States of the European Union. Despite the fact that the European Parliament's ability torepresent Europe's citizens has improved significantly over the years, only 55% of EU citizens voted inthese elections. As in other elections, the European electorate has become less and less likely tovote. (63% of EU citizens cast their vote when the first direct elections were held in 1979.)

Although people who voted in the last election are slightly over-represented in the Eurobarometersample3, it is possible to sketch a profile of people who voted and of those who did not vote. The dataalso provides insight into the reasons why people voted or abstained.

As the following table4 shows, how people feel about the European Union is a good predictor ofwhether they participated in the elections or not. Trust is a particularly important factor with 74% ofrespondents who score high on the European Union institutions and bodies trust scale having cast avote, compared to 47% of those who score low on the scale.5 Furthermore, the table shows that morethan half of the respondents who consider their country’s membership to the European Union a badthing did not vote in the elections.

3 57% of EB respondents aged 18 and over claim to have cast a vote. Table 5.4a shows the breakdown bycountry among respondents aged 15 and over. Actual turnout rates for each Member State can be found on theWeb-site of the European Parliament at: http://www2.europarl.eu.int/election/results/en/maps_en.htm.

4 All analyses are based on respondents aged 18 and over.5 The scale consists of three categories: those who trust less than 4 of the 9 EU institutions and bodies included

in the questionnaire, those who trust between 4 and 6 of the 9 institutions and bodies and those who trust 7 ormore of the 9 institutions and bodies. See Appendix C.4 for more information about the trust scale and chapter3 for a list of the EU institutions and bodies.


83

Participation in the 1999 European Parliament electionsby attitudes to the European Union

(EU15)

% Voted % Did notvote

% Can’tremember /

refusal

Positive EU attitude:

High trust in EU institutionsand bodies

74 22 3

More important role for EP 69 27 4

More important role for EU 68 27 5

EU membership good thing 68 28 4

EU15 Average 57% 37% 6%

Negative EU attitude:

Less important role for EP 56 39 6

Low trust in EU institutionsand bodies 47 46 7

Less important role EU 46 49 5

EU membership bad thing 41 53 6

How well informed people are and feel is also a good predictor of electoral participation. As thefollowing table shows, 75% of people who score high on the opinion leadership index voted, while61% of people who score low on the media use index did not vote6.

Participation in the 1999 European Parliament electionsby knowledge levels

(EU15)

% Voted % Did notvote

% Can’tremember /

refusal

High:

Opinion leadership index ++ 75 23 2

Score 8-10 on self-perceived knowledge scale

72 23 4

Media use index +++ 61 33 6

EU15 Average 57% 37% 6%

Low:

Opinion leadership index -- 46 47 8

Score 1-3 on self-perceivedknowledge scale 45 48 7

Media use index --- 31 61 8

6 See Appendix C.4 for a definition of the variables.


84

The following table shows the percentage of respondents who voted among the various socio-demographic groups in the population7. Although the differences between the groups are not as largeas they are for the attitudinal and knowledge analyses, the results are nonetheless interesting in thatthey are different from what we traditionally find when looking at the socio-demographic groups.When it comes to electoral participation, we find that young people are most likely to abstain withparticipation levels considerably higher among the oldest group of respondents (62% vs. 45%). Thetable also shows that education is for once not a good predictor: the least well-educated people weremore likely to have voted than those who stayed in school until age 16 to 19.

Participation in the 1999 EP elections

(% of respondents aged 18 and overthat voted by socio-demographic

group at the EU15 level)

Group %

Educated up to age 20+ 66

Self-employed 65

Managers 64

Aged 55+ 62

Retired 61

Aged 40-54 61

Employees 60

Men 58

Educated to age 15 or younger 58

Average for EU15 57

House persons 56

Women 55

Educated to age 16-19 53

Aged 25-39 51

Manual workers 51

Students 47

Unemployed 46

Aged 18-24 45

After this insight into who voted and who abstained, we next examine which factors drew our voters tothe election box. This information is obtained from a question which asks respondents who said theyvoted in the EP elections to pick the 2 main reasons for voting from a list of 9 possibilities.Respondents had the option to mention another (unspecified) reason.

As the following graph shows, 64% of voters participated because they consider voting a civic duty.Less than 2 in 10 respondents chose any of the other reasons listed in the questionnaire.

7 The figures are for respondents aged 18 and over. Table 5.4b shows the results for all respondents, thatis including the 4% of the sample aged 15 to 17.


85

64%

16%

16%

14%

13%

11%

8%

8%

4%

3%

Civic duty

To protect national interests

To support a particular party

Only way to be heard

Voting compulsory

In favour of the EU

To support a particular candidate

Role more important for the European Parliament

Other reasons

Against the EU

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 5.5

June 1999 European Parliament elections:reasons why people voted

(EU15)*

*Among respondents aged 18 and overPercentage "don't know" not shown

Civic duty is the most frequently given reason for voting in all the Member States where voting is notcompulsory and in Greece, where voting is compulsory. In the two other countries where voting iscompulsory - Luxembourg and Belgium - civic duty is the second most frequently given reason forvoting. The proportion of voters mentioning civic duty as a reason for voting ranges from 30% inBelgium to 80% in Portugal.

The results also show that, in some countries, party allegiance plays a discernible role in EuropeanParliament elections. Support for a particular party is the second most frequently given reason forvoting in 5 Member States and the third most frequently given reason in 6 further countries. Theproportion of voters that gave this as a reason for voting ranges from 7% in Italy to 25% in Germany.

In quite a few countries, voting in EP elections to protect the national interests of one’s country isanother reason that cannot be ignored. In the UK (20%), Portugal (16%) and France (15%), it is thesecond most frequently given reason; it comes in third place in Finland (28%), Greece (21%), Spain(20%), Denmark and Germany (both 17%). Belgian voters are least likely to give this as a reason forparticipating in the elections (6%).

The feeling that the elections are the only way for people to make their voice heard when itcomes to European issues is the second most frequently stated reason in the Netherlands (28%). Itcomes in third place in Sweden (19%), Austria (18%) and Italy (14%). Quite a significant minority ofpeople in Finland (20%), Ireland (17%), the UK (16%) and Germany (15%) also gave this as one oftheir main reasons.

Support for a particular candidate comes in second place in Ireland (31%) and Finland (29%). In noother country but Denmark (15%) and Sweden (12%) did more than 1 respondent in 10 cite this asone of their two main reasons for voting.

In Italy, 14% of the population voted because they felt that the European Parliament will play amore important role in the daily lives of European Union . The only other countries where at least1 respondent in 10 listed this as one of the two main reasons for voting are Denmark (11%), Swedenand the Netherlands (both 10%).


86

Voting because one supports the European Union is a reason most frequently given by Danish,Swedish (both 16%), French (14%), Italian (13%), Dutch and German (both 12%) voters. People inBelgium (4%), Greece (5%), Ireland and Portugal (both 6%) were least likely to list this as one of thetwo main reasons for voting. Opposition to the European Union is a reason for voting for 14% of theDanish respondents and 10% of the Swedish respondents. Less than 1% of voters in Portugal,Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain were drawn to the booth to voice their dislike of the European Union.

The following table details the three most frequently stated reasons for voting in each Member State.(See also table 5.5)

TOP THREE MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED REASONS WHY PEOPLEVOTED IN THE 1999 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS

(IN %, BY MEMBER STATE)

Belgium Luxembourg

Voting is compulsory 65 Voting is compulsory 53

Civic duty 30 Civic duty 43

Support a particular party 19 Support a particular party 16



Support a particular party 17 To voice EU opinion 28

To protect national interests 17 Support a particular party 21

Germany Austria



To protect national interests 17 To voice EU opinion 18

Greece Portugal


Voting is compulsory 34 To protect national interests 16


Spain Finland


Support a particular party 21 Support a particular candidate 29

To protect national interests 20 To protect national interests 28

France Sweden



Voting is compulsory 14 To voice EU opinion 19



Support a particular candidate 31 To protect national interests 20


Italy

Civic duty 73

EP will be more important 14

To voice EU opinion 14


87

Next, we look at reasons why some respondents8 did not vote in the 1999 European Parliamentelections. Those who did not vote were asked to choose the two main reasons for not voting from a listof 17 possibilities. If respondents did not vote for a reason that was not specified on the list, theycould mention another reason.

As the following graph reveals, 11% of respondents who abstained did so because they do not trust orare dissatisfied with politics, because they are not interested in EU politics or because they were awayfrom home. 10% of respondents referred to not being interested in politics generally, not knowingmuch about the European Union or never voting as reasons for not voting. 12% of respondents aged18 and over gave other reasons for not voting9.

12%

11%

11%

11%

10%

10%

10%

9%

9%

8%

8%

6%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 5.6

June 1999 European Parliament elections:reasons why people did not vote

(EU15)*

*Among respondents aged 18 and overPercentage "don't know" not shown

Other reasons

Away

Don't trust/dissatisfied with politics generally

Not interested in European politics

Not interested in politics as such

Don't know much about the European Union

Rarely or never vote

Too busy/no time

Don't know much about the European Parliament

On holiday

Voting has no consequence

Opposed to the European UnionSick

Dissatisfied with the EP as an institution

Family reasons

Registration problems

Involved in leisure activity

Not satisfied with the EP electoral system

The country by country analyses show that people in countries where voting is compulsory mostly didnot vote because of structural reasons, like being sick, having registration problems or being away onholiday. Attitudinal reasons for not voting were more frequent in countries where voting is notcompulsory. The attitudinal reasons listed in the questionnaire can be classified into the following sixcategories:

1. Lack of trust in politics in general.2. Not participating in elections and feeling that voting has no consequence3. Opposition to the European Union.4. Dissatisfaction with the European Parliament.5. Lack of knowledge in the European Union and the European Parliament.6. Lack of interest in politics generally and European politics specifically.

8 That is, those aged 18 and over. Younger respondents obviously didn’t vote because they were not eligible.9 35% of respondents in Luxembourg and 27% of respondents in Greece – two countries where voting is

compulsory - gave other reasons. In Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany, this was the case for less than 1respondent in 10.


88

Lack of trust is a problem that most affected turnout rates in Germany and Italy. Politicaldisengagement most affected turnout rates in Spain, France and Germany. Opposition to theEuropean Union is the most frequently mentioned reason in Sweden and Austria and also had animpact in Denmark. Dissatisfaction with the European Parliament affected turnout rates in theNetherlands. Lack of knowledge most affected Sweden and the Netherlands. Lack of interest inpolitics generally kept one quarter of Spanish abstainers away from the election booth. Othercountries where this reason affected turnout rates are Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands. Lack ofinterest in EU politics was most frequently mentioned in Finland, the UK, Germany and theNetherlands.

The following table shows the three most frequently stated reasons for not voting in each MemberState. (See also table 5.6)

TOP THREE MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED REASONS WHY PEOPLEDID NOT VOTE IN THE 1999 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS

(IN %, BY MEMBER STATE)*

Belgium Luxembourg

Sick / disabled / elderly 29 Other reasons 34

Other reasons 23 Registration problems 17

Away / on holiday 12 Not interested in politics 11


Not at home 18 Little knowledge of EP 18

Too busy / no time /work 17 Too busy / no time /work 16

Opposed to the EU 13 Dissatisfied with EP 15

Germany Austria

Don’t trust / dissatisfied 18 Opposed to the EU 13

On holiday 14 Don’t trust / dissatifsfied 13

Not interested in EU politics 13 Other reasons 13

Greece Portugal

Other reasons 39 Not at home 19

Registration problems 22 Sick / disabled / elderly 13

Not at home 21 Other reasons 13

Spain Finland

Not interested in politics 25 Not interested in EU politics 17

Rarely or never vote 18 Not interested in politics 16

Not at home 13 Not at home 15

France Sweden

Not at home 20 Opposed to the EU 21

Rarely or never vote 17 Little knowledge of EU 18

Other reasons 10 Little knowledge of EP 16


Not at home 18 Not interested in EU politics 14

Not interested in politics 12 Other reasons 14

Other reasons 12 Too busy / no time /work 13

Italy

Other reasons 19

Don’t trust / dissatisfied 18

Not at home 15

* Among respondents aged 18 and over.


89

We end this chapter with a look at people’s intention to cast a vote in the June 2004 EuropeanParliament elections. With around 2 in 3 EU citizens saying they will vote, it is clear that people'sstated intentions are not necessarily mirrored in their actual behaviour on voting day. As we haveseen earlier, Europeans still feel that voting is a civic duty yet a myriad of factors often prevent themfrom actually carrying out this duty. The results indicate that, in the autumn of 1999, only 11% havealready decided not to vote in 2004. 1% of respondents will not be eligible, while 21% have not yetmade up their minds.

The analyses show that 92% of respondents aged 18 and over who voted in the 1999 elections willvote again, compared to 36% of respondents aged 18 and over who did not vote in 1999. Looking atreasons that made people vote or that kept people away, 97% of respondents who voted becausethey support the European Union will vote again. At the same time, we find that 52% of people whodid not vote in 1999 because they do not like the European Union will also abstain from voting in 2004.

The following graph illustrates the results for each Member State. Nearly 9 in 10 people in Greeceintend to vote in the 2004 elections. (Voting is compulsory in Greece and 84% of Greek respondentsalso voted in the 1999 elections.) Voting is also compulsory in Belgium and Luxembourg where 84%,respectively 83%, of respondents say they will vote. Denmark is the only other country where morethan 8 in 10 respondents say they will vote. Respondents from the UK are least inclined to participatein the next elections (52%). A low interest level in these elections is to be expected in the UK if oneconsiders that only 30% of British respondents claim to have voted in the 1999 election and that theactual turnout rate of 24% was the lowest in the EU. (Table 5.7a)

88

86

84

83

81

72

71

71

70

69

68

67

65

64

58

52

3

8

5

8

4

6

5

11

8

13

14

11

13

15

13

21

GRDK

BLI

IRLPFE

NLS

EU15

FINAD

UK

% Yes % No

European Parliament : intention to vote in June 2004 elections

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig. 5.7Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999 Percentage "not applicable/could not vote then +

don't know" not shown

Demographic analyses show that intentions to vote are slightly higher among men than among women(69% vs. 66%). There are also slight variations among the 4 age groups, with the highest votingintentions noted among people aged 40 to 54 (70%). 77% of managers say they will vote unemployedpeople (60%) are the least inclined to vote. Education is an important predictor: 63% of people wholeft school by the age of 15 or younger say they will vote, compared to 79% of those who stayed inschool until the age of 20 or older. As already seen, people’s attitude towards the European Union isan important determinant of whether they will vote or note: 81% of those who regard their country’smembership to the EU as a good thing say they will vote, as opposed to only 47% of those who feeltheir country’s membership is a bad thing. (Table 5.7b)


90

6. Europeans and languages

In the last chapter of this report, we look at the results of some Eurobarometer questions about thelanguages spoken, known and considered most useful by EU citizens.

6.1. The mother tongue

When we think about what language EU citizens consider as their mother tongue, it does notnecessarily have to be the official language of the country in which they live. Obviously, there areseveral EU Member States with more than one official language. There are also several countrieswhere people consider a regional language to be their mother tongue. The freedom to work and studyin another Member State means that, in each country, we find some ”foreign” EU nationals whosemother tongue is another EU language. Finally, for some EU citizens, their mother tongue is a non-EU language spoken in their country of origin.

The mother tongue – in % by country

Country: National EUlanguage(s)

Other EUlanguage(s)

Arabic orChinese Other

Belgium 94 5 0 0

Denmark 97 2 0 1

Germany 97 2 0 1

Greece 100 0 0 0

Spain 90 1 0 9

France 95 2 1 2

Ireland 92 2 0 6

Italy 100 0 0 0

Luxembourg 8 17 0 75

The Netherlands 96 1 0 2

Austria 97 1 0 2

Portugal 100 0 0 0

Finland 94 61 1 0

Sweden 95 3 0 2

United Kingdom 96 1 0 2

The table above shows the percentage of EU citizens in each country whose mother tongue is one ofthe 11 official EU languages and a national language of the country in which they live (see column 1).It also shows the proportion of people whose mother tongue is an official EU language that is not thenational language of the country in which they live (column 2). The third column speaks for itself. Thefourth column shows the percentage of people whose mother tongue is a language not listed in thequestionnaire. It is in this column that we find the presence of regional languages. In Ireland, the 6%in the ‘other’ category named Irish as their mother tongue and in Spain, Catalan represents 50% of the‘other’ category. In Luxembourg, the majority of respondents are found in the ‘other’ category,Luxembourgeois being the mother tongue for all of them. In Luxembourg we also find the highestproportion of other EU languages due to the large number of foreign EU nationals who live in thiscountry.

1 Swedish.


91

6.2. Knowledge of other languages

Nearly half of EU citizens can take part in a conversation in another language than their mothertongue2. As the following graph shows, there are wide variations between the Member States. InLuxembourg, nearly everyone speaks another language well enough for conversation. This is alsotrue for more than 9 in 10 people living in the Netherlands and more than 8 in 10 people living inDenmark and Sweden. People in the UK and Ireland are least likely to speak another language. InIreland, the proportion who speak another language is higher than in the UK because there are quite afew Irish speakers (and is Irish is their mother tongue, they nearly all also know English.)

97

91

84 82

6459 57

4944 42 41 40

37 36

28

19

L NL DK S B FIN A D EU15 GR F I E P IRL UK0

20

40

60

80

100ÿ

Percentage who can take part in a conversation in anotherlanguage than their mother tongue


Among the various socio-demographic groups, the proportion who can take part in a conversation inanother language than their mother tongue ranges from 76% of students to only 20% of people wholeft school by the age of 15 or younger.

2 Respondents were asked: "Which languages can you speak well enough to take part in a conversation, apartfrom your mother tongue?" The percentage in each country that speaks another language is calculated bysubtracting the percentage of "don't know" responses from the total.


92

.

Percentage speaking anotherlanguages besides the mother tongue

well enough to take part in aconversation (EU15)

Socio-demographic group %

Students 76

Educated up to age 20+ 70

Managers 69

Aged 15-24 62

Employees 56

Aged 25-39 52

Self-employed 48

Men 46

Average for EU15 44

Educated to age 16-19 42

Women 42

Aged 40-54 39

Unemployed 39

Manual workers 37

Aged 55+ 31

House persons 30

Retired 28

Educated to age 15 or younger 20

English is the most widely "spoken" language in the EU. As the following graph shows, nearly half ofEU citizens speak it. It is the mother tongue for 16% of the EU population: a further 31% that speak itwell enough to hold a conversation. Apart from English, the rank order of languages more or lessfollows the rank order of inhabitants. Thus we find that German is the mother tongue for 24% of EUcitizens and spoken well enough as a "second" language by 8% of EU citizens. French is spoken by26% of the EU population, of which 16% are native speakers. Italian is the fourth most widely knownlanguage - it counts as many native speakers as French, while the proportion of non-native speakersis significantly smaller (2%). 14% of the EU population speaks Spanish (10% as mother tongue and4% as other language).


93

2422

Languages and European Union Citizens


16

24

16

16

10

6

3

3

2

2

1

2

31

8

10

2

4

1

1

4

English

German

French

Italian

Spanish

Dutch

Portuguese

Greek

Swedish

Danish

Finnish

Other

% Mother tongue % Other language

TOTAL

47

32

26

18

14

7

3

3

3

2

1

7

The next table lists the 3 most widely spoken languages besides one's mother tongue in each MemberState. It highlights that:

• In all non-English-speaking nations except Luxembourg, English is the most widely known secondlanguage.

• In the English-speaking nations, French is the most widely known second language.• In countries where regional languages are spoken, we find the national language listed as a

‘foreign’ language (i.e. Luxembourg, Spain and Ireland).


94

THREE MOST WIDELY SPOKEN LANGUAGES APART FROM THE MOTHER TONGUE(IN %, BY MEMBER STATE)

Belgium Luxembourg

English 42 French 88

French 37 German 81

German 15 English 53


English 76 English 78

German 50 German 57

French / Swedish 8 French 14

Germany Austria


French 9 French 8

Other3 7 Italian 6

Greece Portugal


French 5 French 18

German 3 Spanish 6

Spain Finland


Spanish 9 Swedish 33

Other4 9 German 11

France Sweden


Spanish 7 German 24

German 6 Danish / French 6


French 12 French 9

Other5 9 German 5

English 6 English 3

Italy

English 28

French 17

German 3

3 Other = not one of the 11 languages of the European Union nor Russian or Arabic.4 Idem.5 Idem.


95

6.3. Which two “foreign” languages are the most useful to know

Asked which two languages people consider the most useful to know apart from their mother tongue6,we find that English is by far the most popular, followed by French, German and Spanish. Addedtogether, the other 7 other official EU languages are seen as most useful by only 4% of the EUpopulation.

70%

37%

23%

16%

4%

1%

2%

13%

English

French

German

Spanish

Other official EU languages

Other non - EU languages

Other

Don't know

What are the 2 most useful languages to know apart from yourmother tongue ?

(EU15)

Standard Eurobarometer 52 - Fig.6.3Source: Survey no. 52.0 - Fieldwork Oct - Nov 1999

The following table lists the 2 languages that are considered most useful in each of the 15 MemberStates. It shows that the most popular languages are:

• English, followed by German, in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands.• English, followed by French in the German-speaking nations, Belgium and the Mediterranean

countries, (except for Greece, where German is more popular than French).• English, followed by Spanish, in France.• French, followed by English, in Luxembourg.• French, followed by German, in the two English-speaking nations.

6 People were asked to name two languages in order to increase the selection of other languages besidesEnglish.


96

TWO MOST USEFUL LANGUAGES APART FROM THE MOTHER TONGUE(IN %, BY MEMBER STATE)

Belgium Luxembourg

English 79 French 69

French 44 English 62



German 50 German 40

Germany Austria


French 42 French 47

Greece Portugal


German 40 French 54

Spain Finland


French 51 German 34

France Sweden


Spanish 36 German 49


French 65 French 61

German 54 German 40

Italy

English 84

French 38

More detailed results on the knowledge and usefulness of 'foreign' languages in each of the MemberStates can be found in tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Documents

EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUR BAROMETERec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb52/eb52... · The mother tongue ... Explanatory note for table headings ... Sample Specification